Revisiting 'Cowboys & Aliens': A real mess of a movie

I had only seen the ill-fated Cowboys & Aliens once, when it first came out in theaters. And I'd always defended it.

I never tried to make the case that it was a classic or anything but I didn't think it deserved the harsh reviews and disappointing box office it received.

But now, after a second viewing, I can safely say it was kind of a disaster and almost a textbook case in how not to make a modern blockbuster.

I guess my mind was clouded to a certain degree when I first saw the film. I am such an enormous Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford fan, they're two of my favorite movie stars and actors working today, that I was predisposed to like anything starring them.

Also, I appreciated that the film was the very least an original concept that would be -- in theory -- blending genres in an unconventional way.

Now I never read the graphic novel on which Cowboys & Aliens is based, so I can't tell if the film was mimicking the tone of that book or venturing out on its own. What I do know is the director Jon Favreau (whose work I by-and-large like) and the scriptwriters spoiled what could have been a fun movie.

Cowboys & Aliens is the most frustrating kind of failure, because I think it could have been good. It has elements that are terrific -- the first 15 minutes or so are pretty engaging and both Craig and Ford make very credible western heroes. But as it gets going it gets increasingly muddled, humorless and mind-numbing.

The thing that galls me the most is that for some reason Favreau, who showed he could make fun popcorn entertainment previously with Iron Man, decided to make a movie with such an inherently silly title but with a premise so dour and serious.

The look of the film is grim and grimy, when it should pop. The aliens, while somewhat creepy are also pretty non-descript CGI nonsense. They have no discernible personality or style, even their ships look boring, and so when they are finally revealed they're kind of a letdown.

Harrison Ford and Daniel Craid doing badass right

As stunning at she is, I still don't quite know what Olivia Wilde was doing in this movie. Her subplot seems particularly absurd and grafted on. And while at first Craig has fun as a taciturn loner his performance is hamstrung by pesky, overly edited flashback sequences which burden the movie. Only, Harrison Ford makes the most of his role; he's particularly funny during a campfire scene where his grumpy rancher character tries to discern much of the plot.

The movie needed more scenes like these. It should have been campier or at least more knowingly silly like Zombieland, which mixed the road movie comedy genre with a horror film but never lost its sense of irony. Favreau seems to want to be staging Unforgiven with periodic alien attacks, and that's not something I think many filmmakers could pull off.

I am ok with chaotic action movies, but I shouldn't find myself not even understanding what's happening in any given scene. Cowboys & Aliens is chock full of these kinds of continuity questions and scenes were explosions punctuate dialogue instead of character development.

Curiously, this film, and the fourth Indiana Jones before it, both stumbled out of the gate trying to make a credible alien movie. I think it's one of the hardest genres because the look of the creatures has to be superb (because it has to compare with unique designs from the past like E.T. and H.R. Giger's Alien) but also the story has to be strong enough to sustain our disbelief.

I will give this film credit for presenting a sensitive portrayal of American Indians, which at least helps sidestep the problematic title of the film which is of course playing off the notion of cowboys and Indians. And there are some nice, nifty moments in the movie -- I particularly liked Paul Dano as Ford's sniveling punk of a son. But the film's clunky, convoluted plot and uninspired visuals will likely leave the film on the scrapheap of forgettable, albeit noble, failures.

A look back on my weekend with 'Die Hard'

For no particular reason, this Sunday, my fiancee and I decided to watch the original three Die Hard films -- and the only legit ones in my humble opinion.

We watched them in reverse as a nod to a friend who joined us for one, and who insisted on starting with 1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance.

All three were big hits in their day -- although ironically the most financially successful of the three, Die Hard 2, enjoys something akin to red-headed stepchild status within the trilogy.

It's not hated, it's definitely a good action movie, but it doesn't have the same fandom the other two do, but more on that later.

Is this the greatest trio of action films ever? I won't go that far. But they are all strong, grounded entries that provide Bruce Willis with a great opportunity to do credible action while constantly making wisecracks.

In the CGI-dominated era in which he live, the practical achievement of these films is remarkable. And while each of the films take narrative leaps into the absurd (the subway travel estimates alone in Die Hard with a Vengeance are laughable), they have so much propulsive momentum that I didn't really mind.

Bruce Willis as John McClane

Here are some of my impressions of these memorable movies -- all of which have the terrific conceit of taking place within a 24-hour time frame. some twenty years removed from the last one:

Die Hard with a Vengeance - Several things struck me about this film. Its reputation has only grown since its initial release, with some fans suggesting it rivals the original in terms of quality. I wouldn't go that far but it definitely does a lot with an inventive plot. The preoccupation with race and the occasionally homophobic bits of dialogue date it a bit -- but otherwise this is an exciting, top notch action movie.

It has some pretty enormous gaps in logic. How for instance, does the villain (played terrifically by Jeremy Irons) manage to plant bombs in all these remote locations while planning to rob the Federal Reserve? But what this film does very well is recapture the spirit of the original film. Willis' John McClane is once again stuck in a situation he wants no part of -- roused from a hangover, he's the pawn of an apparent psychopath which sends him on a wild goose chase in order to prevent terrorist bombings.

It benefits largely from its New York flavor, little details that residents of the Big Apple would appreciate. And like all the best Die Hard films it's funny in a disarming sort of way. Also, most importantly, although it's plot is larger than life, the action mostly isn't.

Die Hard 2 - This one gets a bad wrap. It's set in a D.C, airport, which gives it less aesthetic flavor than the Los Angeles or New York-set films. Instead of the McClane character getting sucked into a situation against his will, he pretty much inserts himself into the action here -- which isn't terrible but does change the stakes a bit.

This time some shadowy military general from abroad is being set free by some other shadowy bad guys. And instead of a charismatic type, like Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber, they are led by a pretty straightforward creepy bad guy, played this time by William Sadler. Still, their plot to take over the air traffic control and crash plans unless their demands are met is suitably scary -- and once things get going there are some terrific set pieces where McClane takes matters into his own hands when officials at the airport try to marginalize him.

The cutaways to McClaine's wife on board one of the airlines in jeopardy are pretty cheesy though and the attempts to make meta 'here we go again' type commentary are more eyeroll inducing than anything else. Still, I am a Die Hard 2 defender. The climax and finale work for me, it has a certain ruthlessness which I appreciate in an action movie -- I love when a character's demise is shocking enough to illicit an audible "oooooohhh." But I also understand why this one isn't a fan favorite.

The premise just isn't as irresistible and the setting pales in comparison to the iconic, albeit fictional Nakatomi building of the first film.

Hans Gruber

Die Hard - Which brings me to the first film. I recently sang its praises while paying tribute to Alan Rickman and I want to double down on that. These films are almost always as good as their villains and Hans Gruber is one of the all time best. First, his plan is pretty flawless, the one thing he didn't prepare for was McClane, which all things considered, is a fair thing for him not to have anticipated.

Second, he doesn't screw around. He kills Nakatomi instead of toying with him. He largely contains the McClane situation, until his underlings screw that up. He is a formidable foe for McClane, if not physically than at least intellectually.

Similarly, the McClane character (despite some somewhat sexist attitudes towards his wife) is an expertly drawn, sympathetic character. His wisecracks seem less like schtick and more of a defense mechanism in this film and Willis is effective when he is allowed to show his character's genuine fear and vulnerability.

Hilariously, the filmmakers were contractually obligated to first offer Willis' role to Frank Sinatra since he had once played a character from the novel on which the movie is based. Sinatra would have been 73 at the time and he was nowhere near Harrison Ford shape.

Still, in retrospect, it's remarkable that Willis got the part. He had one minor hit under his belt, the B-movie Blind Date, and was mostly known as a charming TV star. In a way, he was the Chris Pratt of his day, a cuddly television actor remolded into a movie star overnight thanks to a sensational role. What the last two Die Hard films got wrong is they missed the point of what made the original so spectacular -- its simplicity.

Die Hard is great because it presents a semi-plausible but heightened situation -- a hostage crisis where one lone cop has slipped past the perpetrators. Too many action films add layers of complexity and extraneous plot, thinking that will make the final result more effective, but often times the best action movie strip the fat and stick to a direct, compelling narrative -- Mad Max Fury Road is a terrific example of that phenomenon.

I had a great time revisiting these films. I don't think we'll ever see action movies like this again, so they are worth treasuring for time capsule value, as well as pure entertainment.

Oscar pick-a-palooza year three: What is the Best Picture?

This is the sixth and final entry in a series of of annual Oscar predictions posts featuring myself and my friend Brian Wezowicz of Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans. 

BRIAN: Leonardo wasn't nominated for Django??? Tragic. I totally agree with your statement about Johnny Depp's work in Black Mass. The Academy has a really bad short term memory, and unfortunately, September is light years away.

It's now time for the big award (unless I forgot another category)... Best Picture. You and I are both on record as not liking the "up to 10" movie rule of this award.

I don't know what the cut off is, but there are a number of movies that could have fit into those final three spots. Creed revitalized the Rocky franchise, while Star Wars was nothing short of breathtaking.

Personally, I would have enjoyed seeing Inside Out crack the top ten. I think it's Pixar's best movie in years, and a stunning piece of film making. I know it's a lock to win the best animated movie, but if there was ever a year in which an animated movie could stand a chance to win Best Picture, I think it's this one. I enjoyed it that much.

Of the seven nominated, I think there's a frontrunner (The Revenant), a close second (Mad Max: Fury Road), and a bunch of others that have a decent chance. Of the three years we've been doing this, I'm the least sure in my pick.

Here are the nominees:

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

Who Will Win: The Revenant. I could see a split director/best picture, where The Revenant wins best picture, and George Miller wins director and vice versa. I think The Revenant has the most momentum going in to the big night. I think it squeaks out a win.

Who Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road. It's my #3 and your #1 movie of the year, and I could have easily placed it at #1. It took a 30+ year old franchise and made it fresh and exciting. There isn't an uninteresting frame in the entire film. Plus, Hollywood loves big epic spectacles, and this certainly fits the bill.

Dark Horse: The Big Short. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a feeling about this movie. It's funny, did well at the box office, and has a ton of stars in it. I can't see it getting shut out. I could also have gone with The Martian, but with Ridley Scott getting shut out in the directing category, I don't like its chances.

So that's it for me. Who takes home your big prize?

In a side note... thanks for doing this again. I really enjoy talking movies, and I love your blog. You have a great way of making your readers feel like they're in the theater with you. I would like to try to do this more often. I loved talking Ghostbusters with you (even though I'm still on the outs with it... Ha!)

ADAM: Dude, this is hard. #That'sWhatSheSaid. This has got to be the most difficult to predict Oscar race I've seen in years. Now that I've caught up and seen all the films nominated, I do think there are a few you can scratch off right off the bat.

I liked Bridge of Spies a lot but it didn't resonate quite enough to topple contenders that feel fresher. I was somewhat underwhelmed by Brooklyn -- it's not a bad movie, but also not a great one. I think Room is too small a film to topple some of these others. That leaves The Revenant, The Martian, Mad Max Fury Road, Spotlight and The Big Short.

I think you can eliminate The Martian next because its director, Ridley Scott, wasn't even nominated. Although in the past that benefitted Argo, I think that was a unique circumstance where Hollywood was devastated for poor multi-millionaire Ben Affleck, and wanted to a do mea culpa.

Even though Scott is a living legend, and The Martian may be his biggest crossover success, I don't sense the same aggrieved feeling for him. Director and Best Picture may still split this year, but I doubt a film will win whose director isn't even in the mix.

Sidebar -- I hate to sound like broken record, but in such a wide field Creed, Straight Outta Compton and The Force Awakens should of and could have taken the spots occupied by Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn and maybe even Room, although that film made my top 10.

So I think this usually competitive Oscar race is actually down to four movies. There's Spotlight, which everyone loves but very few people are going to see, Mad Max which also enjoys universal acclaim but is, at the end of the day, an action film, The Revenant, which is really hot right now but also, technically, the nominee with the weakest reviews and The Big Short, which is sort of in the middle of the pack in terms of being an audience pleaser and a more traditional Oscar-baity movie.

Will win: Spotlight

Actors are the biggest branch of Oscar voters and I don't see them going for Mad Max, which despite its epic performances is viewed more as a technical achievement. And despite how hot The Revenant is, I see rewarding that film with Best Actor instead. Between The Big Short and Spotlight I think it's really close, and the PGA win gives Adam McKay's film more momentum, but I am kind of convinced that the more polished film will win here. Although I could be totally off base.

Should win: Mad Max Fury Road

I've said it before and I'll say it again. My favorite film of the year by a pretty wide margin. I could watch it almost anytime. I am still in awe that they pulled it off and I'm thrilled that it's here. Should it win Best Picture it would go down as the COOLEST winner since perhaps No Country for Old Men or perhaps The Godfather Part II prior to that. But the coolest movies never win. Apocalypse Now lost. Pulp Fiction lost. Star Wars lost. I could on and on.

Dark Horse: The Big Short

I think I opted for Spotlight over this one because I simply thought it was the better film. The Big Short was a little too pleased with its own cleverness at times and I think its overall premise was inherently problematic, whereas Spotlight, in the least showy way possible, presented heroes you could root for without reservations and told a sensitive story with refreshing restraint. But it's not been winning many of the big awards and seems to have already peaked at the box office. If the voters want to go more populist, this seems to be the best choice.

Seeing 'Brooklyn' in the shadow of #OscarsSoWhite

Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn

Brooklyn is a perfectly nice little movie, with some heartfelt performances (although as terrific as she is, Saoirse Ronan's pretty much saintly character has to do a prodigious amount of sobbing), but in the aftermath of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, I couldn't help but resent the film a little bit.

Set in a hermetically sealed, idyllic version of 1950s Brooklyn, the film does not have a single character of color save for a few extras, who never utter a line of dialogue. I understand that this film isn't about racial conflicts, or the civil rights movement, but not even a mention of Jackie Robinson? It's like an alternative universe.

The story, pleasant as it is, has no real compelling conflict -- our heroine's great challenges are homesickness and deciding between two gainfully employed and adorable would-be spouses.

I couldn't help but think about the fact that a film like this, with no major stars and a sentimental, even sappy, story would never be financed and given the awards push this film has received if it didn't feature an all-white cast. And that made me angry.

I didn't hate this film. Don't get me wrong. It's charming and sweet. It's very pretty to look at. It's the kind of movie you can comfortably recommend to your parents. But it didn't have an ounce of the emotional impact on me that Creed or Beasts of No Nation or Straight Outta Compton did.

Now, I don't believe that Best Picture nominees need to be about big overarching themes. I adored Lost In Translation, and that is little more than a small character study of two lonely people. So the lack of narrative complexity didn't bother me when it came to Brooklyn.

I simply felt like I wasn't seeing something I hadn't seen before, and, as I did with another critical darling -- Carol -- I often was ahead of the film's plot, mentally telegraphing scenes before they happened. Is that the mark of a great film? I don't think so.

Beasts of No Nation

But Brooklyn will likely find an audience, even if it doesn't take home any Oscars. It will likely draw in more white viewers who simply presume they will be able to better relate to its characters than the ones in a so-called 'black' film, while minority audiences are often left with no choice than to identify with white characters on screen, and make the most of it.

Speaking of white privilege, without spoiling the film -- it is fascinating that the lead character arrives in the U.S. from Ireland with a pre-arranged job and place to stay. Oh, and she almost instantly falls in love (if you have seen the trailer, you have largely seen this movie), and yet we are supposed to feel deeply sorry for her.

It's a tribute to Ronan and the cast that the film is as engaging as it is. And while the costumes and cinematography are first rate I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching a film lacking heat and authenticity. It was a pretty painting without a lot of depth inside.

Still, it's refreshing to see a film with a female protagonist with agency and I can't say you shouldn't see this film. What I will say to those who are refusing to see Beasts of No Nation because they fear the subject matter is too heavy, you ought to see that too in addition to this.

Black audiences have to often endure treacly odes to a pre-civil rights America, so the very least you can do is get a glimpse of a life outside your comfort zones.

Oscar pick-a-palooza year three: Who is the Best Actor?

Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant

This is the fifth in a series of of annual Oscar predictions posts featuring myself and my friend Brian Wezowicz of Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans. 

Check out his blog and give it some love and in the meantime, read our take on this year's Academy Award nominees.

BRIAN: Ah yes, Best Actor! I completely flaked on this one. Chalk it up to sleep deprivation with the new kiddo. Maybe it's because (in my mind) this category is such a foregone conclusion, that I completely omitted it.

To me, this is a one horse race. It's Leo's year and anything else will completely shock me. The Revenant is getting praised for its harsh shooting conditions (using only natural light and facing the harsh wintry conditions), while Leo seems to be getting the same praise. Is it his best role? Probably not (to me, it's The Wolf Of Wall Street), but the Academy definitely likes to make their stars wait their due course. Like his mentor, Martin Scorsese, Leo probably should have won for his earlier, better work. But here we are and one of America's greatest actors will finally be getting his name called.

There were other great performances (I especially enjoyed Matt Damon's role in The Martian), as well as a few obvious snubs (Michael B. Jordan in Creed comes to mind), but none are strong enough to stop Leo's Titanic (see what I did there?) like momentum. Here are the nominees: 

BEST ACTOR
Bryan Cranston, Trumbo 
Matt Damon, The Martian 
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant 
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs 
Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl 

Who Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio.

He finally gets his name called, and deservedly so.

Who Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio.

While it may not be his best role to date, he still deserves to win.

Dark Horse: Matt Damon.

Matt Damon in The Martian

He's already won the Golden Globe, but I don't think he's got enough momentum. Redmayne won it last year, so he's out. Cranston's reward is the nomination, and Fassbender was criminally overlooked in his refreshing take on Steve Jobs.

It's Leo's night. Everyone else is along for the ride. Who is your best actor?

ADAM: No worries. I'm sleep deprived, too, and I don't even have a good excuse. And yeah I totally agree with you. I am a Leonardo DiCaprio fan and I do think he gives a terrific, committed performance in The Revenant. It's probably not his best, in fact my two favorite DiCaprio performances are films he wasn't even nominated for -- The Departed and Django Unchained. He's been so good for so long and probably deserved to win a couple years where he didn't.

In a year where the competition for Best Actor isn't as stiff as it usually is, it appears that this narrative has taken hold that he HAS to win, which is a little annoying to me. Although I have no problem with it. I would have liked to have seen Michael B. Jordan nominated here too. Creed, and Stallone's supporting performance, work because of Jordan, hopefully he'll get there soon. And I was a big fan of Johnny Depp's work in Black Mass, which I guess just faded away since it came out so early.

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio

He gives a memorable, visceral performance in The Revenant. It's not actually the type of role that usually wins Oscars (Robert Redford, for instance, was unjustly snubbed for his similarly rigorous performance in All Is Lost). It's got minimal dialogue (he has one big Oscar type speech) and he spends much of it incapacitated. But he is compelling to watch here and while in a perfect world the best acting should be all that matters, narratives usually matter more when it comes to this type of thing.

Who should win: Leonardo DiCaprio.

That being said -- I do think DiCaprio probably gave the best performance here. I haven't see Trumbo, but I've heard the Bryan Cranston film is merely OK. I really liked Michael Fassbender's performance in Steve Jobs and am happy to see it recognized, but I might put it one notch below. I wasn't as high on The Martian as you were. I though it was a very good mainstream piece of entertainment, and I thought Matt Damon did wonders with a well-crafted movie star role, but I wasn't emotionally affected by it in the same way I was with say Gravity. I have not seen Redmayne's performance either, but I've heard very mixed things about the film and needless to say we're not going to have the third ever back-to-back Best Actor winner on Feb. 28. Spencer Tracy, Tom Hanks and Eddie Redmayne? I don't think so.

Dark Horse: Matt Damon

And I contradict myself within seconds again. I think Damon is also deserving of an Oscar. Even though some of my favorite performances of his -- namely The Talented Mr. Ripley and also The Departed -- were never nominated. He seems like a immensely good guy -- the whitesplanining diversity incident notwithstanding. And his movie was a big fat hit. I think he'll get one eventually, but I think if anyone can upset DiCaprio, it's him. But now that The Revenant has become a big hit in its own right, I don't think it's possible for that to happen.

Oscar pick-a-palooza year three: Who is the Best Director?

George Miller on the set of Mad Max: Fury Road

This is the fourth in a series of of annual Oscar predictions posts featuring myself and my friend Brian Wezowicz of Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans. 

Check out his blog and give it some love and in the meantime, read our take on this year's Academy Award nominees.

BRIAN: Uggghhhhhhh! Ah, yes... the age old problem of racism against whites. See you at the next Donald Trump rally Charlotte. Yikes! I wonder how she'll feel about today's emergency measures taken by the Academy to ensure diversity within the nominees. I don't quite know how to segue from that to our next category, so I'll just go ahead and cut straight to the chase.

I feel like this is a strong group of directors. From the big and bold world of the apocalypse (Miller) to perhaps the most innovative director working today (Iñárritu), to a great director working out of his comfort zone (McKay), I feel like we have a dynamite group of directors. I'm really torn here. I love the fact that George Miller was nominated. Besides Stallone, there isn't a more rewarding "comeback" story in this year's race than George Miller.

I wasn't the biggest Mad Max fan growing up, and so it took me awhile to see Fury Road in the theaters. But my hesitation was completely without merit. Without exaggeration, it may be one of the most beautiful films ever made, certainly one of the most exciting. Throw in the fact that it may be one of the most feminist action movies ever made and you have the perfect recipe for an Oscar winner (plus, it was just so damn fun!). However, I feel like the tide is swelling for The Revenant and it could be in for a big night.

Here are the nominees:

DIRECTING 
Adam McKay - The Big Short
George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
Alejandro G. Iñárritu - The Revenant
Lenny Abrahamson - Room
Tom McCarthy - Spotlight

Who Will Win: Iñárritu

I don't think anything is slowing this one down. The only thing that could keep him back is I don't believe there has ever been a back to back directing winner. Hell, you can probably count the number of major category back to back winners on one hand. Was Tom Hanks the last to do it? I know that Christoph Waltz won two Oscars, but his movies weren't released in two straight years.

Who Should Win: George Miller

I honestly can't remember seeing a movie quite like Mad Max: Fury Road. It's the best Max movie by a long shot. The Academy loves big time event movies (Gladiator, Return Of The King, Braveheart, etc.), so I could see them going with Miller here. I may have to go home and watch this movie tonight!

Adam McKay

Dark Horse: I really think that it's either one or the other, but If I had to pick one I would go with Adam McKay. His first dip into drama was a surprising success.

Who you got?

ADAM: Are we going to come back to Best Actor? I think the so-called emergency measures are long overdue. I've always thought it was absurd that you had these ancient Oscar voters who reportedly don't even watch most of the films and who are so disconnected from what's happening in the movies that they aren't familiar with any actor under the age of 40 who isn't named Jennifer Lawrence.

It's sad that it took the embarrassment of #OscarsSoWhite to do something dramatic, but hey it took a massacre in a church to bring down the Confederate flag in South Carolina, so what can you do.

This is a really hard category to predict. I think at least four of the five nominees have a legit chance to win. I agree that George Miller has the best "comeback" narrative. After doing some kids movies, he got back to what he does best -- mind blowing action that is both gorgeous to look at and staged (mostly) for real. Iñárritu is on a real hot streak with The Revenant coming right after his triumph with Birdman. McCarthy made one of the best journalism films of all time with Spotlight and Adam McKay showed he has real range, with his first serious film The Big Short. Room is terrific, but I think Lenny Abrahamson's nomination is his reward here.

I'm still smarting over the the snub of Ryan Coogler for his work on Creed, and quite frankly J.J. Abrams, who did a miraculous job rejuvenating Star Wars, deserved some consideration too, but I digress.

Who will win: This is so hard but I am going to take a risk here and say George Miller.

I think he will benefit from the entirety of the academy voting for this one, and arguably of all the nominees his film is the most distinctly a director's movie. At 70, I think voters understand that he's due and as well-received as The Revenant is I don't see Iñárritu winning Best Director two years in a row. I also feel like McCarthy's film is just too small to win, but I could be wrong.

Who should win: George Miller

This is a no brainer for me because Mad Max: Fury Road was my favorite movie of the year. I thought the film was visionary and original and a win for him would be an acknowledgment of what an ambitious feat he pulled off.

Dark horse: Adam McKay

His film just won the PGA, which I think makes it a dark horse to win Best Picture, and while these two awards sometimes split, they usually don't. The Big Short is enough of a crowd pleaser and not particularly divisive with critics, so it might pull off an upset here.

Oscar pick-a-palooza year three: Who is the Best Actress?

Brie Larson in Room

This is the third in a series of of annual Oscar predictions posts featuring myself and my friend Brian Wezowicz of Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans. Check out his blog and give it some love and in the meantime, read our take on this years Academy Award nominees.


BRIAN: And that is why I defer to you for top notch insight and analysis. I've always assumed that Ruffalo already has an Oscar. He's too good of an actor to not have one on his shelf. Is it too late to change my dark horse pick?

On to our next category: Best Actress. To me, it seems like we have two front runners and a bunch of also-rans. I think this category boils down to a two horse race between Cate Blanchett and Brie Larson. The one here that looks like she was nominated based solely on reputation is Jennifer Lawrence for Joy. It's her lowest rated David O. Russell collaboration, so I'm not sure why she's there.

I hate to admit that I haven't seen any of these movies this year. I'm dying to see Room, and Carol really peaks my interest. I've heard mixed things about Brooklyn. A local radio show described it as almost a Lifetime movie on the big screen. Here are the nominees: 

BEST ACTRESS

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

Who Will Win: Cate Blanchett.

I'm going with my gut on this one. I'm not sure the Academy will give the award to the slight favorite in Brie Larson. They aren't always on the cutting edge when it comes to younger, first-time nominees. We'll see. I'm going with Blanchett here.

Cate Blanchett in Carol

Who Should Win: Brie Larson.

A stunning performance in one of your favorite movies of the year. I desperately need to see this wonderful film. Plus, wouldn't it be nice to have a fresh face holding the golden statue? 

Dark Horse: Brie Larson

I think she has a really good opportunity to pull off the upset.

Who takes home your Best Actress Oscar?

ADAM: I think your assessment of this race is correct. Although I have heard much better things about Brooklyn than apparently you have. I have tickets to a screening of that one for next week, so I will reserve judgment. I think virtually no one outside of industry insiders has seen 45 Years (it hasn't even grossed $1 million yet) but I have seen nothing but critical adulation for Charlotte Rampling, who is a great character actress (see The Verdict or Stardust Memories).

The other three performances I did see. Joy I actually just saw last night, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to. I was starting to get a little cynical about Jennifer Lawrence. She to me has become something of a cross between Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep. She's both America's sweetheart and the actress who has her pick of any movie she wants right now AND she is an Oscar darling who will get nominated for virtually every performance she gives. That said, she is terrific in Joy and although that film has its detractors, I think she deserves to be in this race.

Still, one of my favorite lead female performances of the year should have been here and was snubbed, that would be Lily Tomlin in Grandma. I thought both she and that film were incredibly underrated and deserved breakout status, but unfortunately they didn't catch on with audiences or Oscar voters.

But alas these are the nominees we have.

Who will win: Brie Larson

Although the subject matter of Room is challenging, I think she is so compelling and charismatic in the film that it won't matter. She has been steadily building up a reputation as a strong dramatic actress and the Oscars have a huge preference for ingenues in this category (the fact that the 40-something Cate Blanchett is considered a 'veteran' speaks to the ersatz sexism still entrenched in this industry). Blanchett was terrific in Carol, but she also won just two years ago, and has a Supporting trophy in her pocket as well. She may win another one some day but I don't think this is her night. 

Who should win: Brie Larson

She gave one of the most moving, emotional performances of the year. The surprise nominations for Room in not just the Best Picture but Best Director categories suggest that Oscar voters 'got' the film. And with the caveat that I haven't see the Rambling or Ronan movies, it feels like the least typically Oscar-baity of the lot, which I love. Like sidebar -- it would have been such a cool, unconventional choice to see Charlize Theron here for her deserving work in Mad Max: Fury Road, but as you've mentioned previously, the snooty-ness is strong with this voting body.

Dark horse: Cate Blanchett

I want to say Jennifer Lawrence here but I just don't think they will give it to a film this polarizing, although Meryl Streep won for The Iron Lady, a film that was pretty god awful. I don't think Charlotte Rampling or Saorise Ronan's films are getting enough traction to overtake Larson or Blanchett. And Blanchett is an Oscars favorite. So although I think Larson is pretty close to a lock, I also believe Blanchett is her biggest competition.

P.S. Shortly after making my picks I read that Charlotte Rampling, in her infinite ignorance, argued that a boycott of the Oscars by black actors was "racist against whites," so yeah I don't think she has a prayer of winning.