'Annhilation' aims for the high-minded sci-fi audience

The new sci-fi mind-bender Annihilation is clearly trying to the same adult, brainy audiences that powered Arrival and Interstellar to box office success and critical acclaim. It certainly boasts strong reviews, but the early reaction from audiences is mixed at best. This doesn't surprise me at all. Despite having something akin to a conventional thriller set-up, its pay-off is much more obtuse and heady, which likely turned off viewers expecting something closer to a clear and concise conclusion.

I myself was not entirely sure how I felt about the movie when the credits rolled. It is self consciously portentous and I wasn't entirely sold on the elliptical nature of its narrative. But the movie got me thinking and the more I think about it the more I like it.

I can't easily spell out what the movie is about or what is trying to say, which may be one of its larger faults, but it clearly has something to do with the self destructive nature of people and the inevitability of death -- certainly not light-hearted themes. There a few light laughs in this film, but very few, it's a stark, at times harrowing viewing experience.

There are several hair-raising suspense sequences and some pure moments of horror, but every time the film could slip into a more mainstream, propulsive pace, it pulls the rug from under you.

At the center of the film is Natalie Portman, stunning but also strikingly gaunt. At first it seems as though she has not totally lost the lilting voice she used to bring Jackie Kennedy to life just a couple years ago. She is an inherently watchable and sympathetic figure. She is surrounded by a strong supporting cast of women (Oscar Isaac has a small, but pivotal supporting role), among whom the standout for me is Jennifer Jason Leigh, who underplays her role beautifully and has such startling gravitas I found myself frustrated that she isn't in more movies.

All of the characters, including Portman's, notably have trauma and unresolved issues that in some ways provide the impetus for them to explore a mysterious "shimmer" which is gradually threatening to spread out and presumably devour the earth.

Their journey into this particular heart of darkness includes some soul searching and some riveting encounters with some highly evolved beasts, but the sense of inevitable doom that haunts every scene suggests the film's director (Ex-Machina's Alex Garland) is attempting to say something deeper than what meets the eye.

I can safely say I am not entirely sure what that something is. The film's finale in particular is pretty maddeningly ambiguous and arguably raises more questions than answers, but this is a film I will gladly be willing to revisit and dissect.

I love that the studios are still making movies like this. Sure, it's based on a popular best-seller, but if definitely is not aimed at an action movie audience looking for quick, cheap thrills. It probably won't be very profitable (Netflix is going to be handling worldwide distribution) in the short term either. But I think with some time and distance this could be remembered as a very ambitious, and potentially very great sci-fi film.

There are some really gorgeous sequences here, some incredible uses of sound and light. The filmmaking is fluid and assured. And yet I think the jury is still out if it lands emotionally.

That being said, I can't emphasize enough how much this movie isn't for everyone. It requires a lot of patience and a willingness to surrender to its distinct, and sometimes off-key rhythms (some of the music choices early in the film are particularly incongruous.) But I think the best movies stand the test of time and/or make you think, and as of right now, I can safely say the latter, and TBD on the former.

'Never Seen It' - Episode 31 - Taking a peep at 'Hollow Man'

Hollow Man

My wife Elizabeth Rosado and I are big fans of director Paul Verhoeven. He's one of the best satirists of American culture working in movies. If you don't believe me, please check out Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers, even the comically bad but entertaining Showgirls.

But this film, Hollow Man, is widely derided at just a dismal failure, and unlike Showgirls, not an interesting one. Until this week, I had never seen it. I just knew of it because of its special effects, which were state of the art circa the year 2000.

In our "Never Seen It"podcast -- which now available on iTunes -- Liz and I weigh in on this polarizing sci-fi thriller after having watched it for the first time separately. Click on the YouTube link below to hear our hot take.


And check out out all our previous episodes here.

'Coming to America' remains cultural touchstone 30 years later

Amid the excitement and positive vibes around the Black Panther phenomenon, I thought it would be worth looking back at another beloved mainstream hit that takes place in part in a decadent, fictional African kingdom that also influenced black culture and instilled black pride.

While Black Panther has Wakanda, the 1988 comedy Coming to America has Zamunda, another ode to black beauty and excellence.

It represented in many ways the high water mark of Eddie Murphy's clout as a movie star. He produced the film, penned the original story on which it was based. It clearly had a large budget, employed an almost entirely black cast and featuring incredible dance sequences, elaborate costumes and state-of-the-art make-up effects that still hold up.

The film comes with the usual caveats that many '80s films do -- it has some problematic misogyny (although Murphy's character does ultimately settle down with an independent woman) and some silly notions about how a modern monarchy in Africa might function, but I think it's charms far outweigh its deficiencies.

As an Eddie Murphy fan this film represents his peak as a black icon. He would continue to make predominately African-American films (such as the underrated Harlem Nights, and overrated Boomerang) but this one is his funniest. It's the one the taps into his unique ability as a mimic (see his remarkable performance as the old Jewish man in the legendary barbershop scenes) but also his ability to play a tender leading man.

After years of being a hard ass or comic foil to white people on screen, this movie showed that Murphy had the range to play in a lot of modes that audiences might not have expected from him. He also was able with the brilliant casting and conception of this world create an easily quotable (both visually and dialogue-wise) film for the ages.

Remember the Time

Black America in particular has really embraced Coming to America over the years. It's become our go-to raucous comedy of that era, and I think in part for some of the very same reasons Black Panther has already become a touchstone. It's aspirational, it's beautiful. At no time do the heroes degrade themselves or slip into stereotypes.

Murphy's character is highly intelligent and articulate, even if he is a naive fish-out-of-water in New York City, which is refreshing for a time when Africans were usually being portrayed as nothing more than savage, primitive warriors in much of American cinema up until that point.

And sadly, in the 30 years since it became a smash hit, Hollywood hasn't shown much interest in replicating its formula for success. The one noticeable outlier is Michael Jackson's unforgettable "Remember the Time" music video, which ironically cast Murphy as royalty again, but this time as a stern-faced, disapproving king. Although now, finally, there is talk of a sequel -- which had better star Murphy is some capacity -- he needs a real comeback vehicle!

Coming to America has always occupied a special place in my heart as one of my all-time favorite films. My wife and I bonded over it on one of our first dates. I can act out full scenes from the movie from memory (and often do) ... SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!. And it's a movie I'm always down to re-watch and re-visit since it works on so many levels and yet is a pretty old fashioned romantic comedy when you strip away all the pomp and circumstance.

But what sets it apart and keeps it relevant, is the promise it showed for black potential. Of course, Zamunda and Wakanda aren't real -- but the hope that they someday could be, and that seeing those worlds writ large on-screen might inspire people strive towards that kind of perfection is a wondrous thing and something we need to continue to cultivate.

Believe the hype: 'Black Panther' is a masterful, moving blockbuster

It's hard to put into the words the effect Black Panther had on me. Some will probably dismiss it as "just another superhero movie," but for many African-Americans it means so much more.

It certainly means a lot to me, since I recall playing Ghostbusters on the playground and being relegated to the role of Winston Zeddemore (who was cool, but no Venkman).  I remember Lando Calrissian's handsome face being my entry point for Star Wars.

But here, in this remarkably entertaining and slyly complex film, I didn't have to pick and choose my heroes, because the screen was full of them.

There were black people of all different shades, looking beautiful and strong.

Not every character of color was a good guy, and the main hero was not without his flaws. And yet, just like with Get Out (which curiously also came out during Black History Month a year ago), I watched this film with a diverse audience, all of whom were invested in a story by and about black people, and they all appeared to enjoy the hell out of it.

Which is no small feat in an age where audiences are quick to deflate the hype around any movie, and when contrarian opinions inevitably eclipse initial thoughts. I had previously enjoyed almost every Marvel movie I'd seen since Iron Man changed the game just ten years ago -- but most of those films soared on the strength of their star turns, not their story. Therefore, I can barely explain to you what actually happened in many of those films now, or what they were about.

It's probably fair to say that most Marvel movies prior to this one were not really about anything, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it renders them largely disposable. Black Panther, which was clearly made with a lot of earnestness and purpose by the brilliant writer-director Ryan Coogler, takes some big risks in the hopes of resonating with the young boys and girls who have inevitably gone to see it, and it miraculously pulls off something fresh and invigorating.

The politics... Yes, this is the first overtly political Marvel movie (although Captain America: Civil War flirted with a closer look at why and how we employ our military muscle). Its plot deals with whether the fictional African country of Wakanda could and/or should use its rich (and secret) resources to enrich the rest of the world and risk their sovereignty and safety in order to do it. This premise provides real stakes and an opportunity to take some digs at colonialism and systemic oppression. That said, the movie never crosses the line from subtle to preachy, even if it is bursting at the seams with progressive representation.

Which brings me to ... the women. Unlike any superhero movie other than Wonder Woman, this film provides a space for its badass female heroes to not just shine, but nearly steal the show. After too many roles utilized her only as a motion capture performer, Lupita Nyong'o gets to be the sexy, fierce love interest here. Danai Gurira is simply fantastic as a great warrior and the right hand woman of Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Letitia Wright is wily and witty as his sister and personal Q branch. Add the legendary Angela Bassett to the mix and you have an embarrassment of riches here.

Michael B. Jordan in Black Panther

Still, the standout performance for me comes from ... the villain. I don't remember any superhero movie I've ever seen where I was emotionally moved by and involved in the bad guy's backstory. But in this film, Coogler doesn't just provide his muse Michael B. Jordan with a flashy role as the swaggering Erik Killmonger, he also gives him a powerful motivation to do his evil deeds, and a nuanced take on the world that is seductive as hell. Jordan is a magnetic movie star of the first order, and if there was any justice in the world, his one-of-a-kind performance in this film would earn some awards recognition later in the year.

And that being said, as sincere as his performance and the movie is, keep in mind that its strength may be ... its humor. This is one of the most effortlessly funny of all the Marvel films. The humor comes from natural teasing, or unexpectedly clever line readings, or blunt responses amid the tension. Almost every character gets an opportunity to crack a smile either themselves or in the audience, and the tone is totally in keeping with the story's comic book origins. The comedy also helps the film's pacing feel fleet and satisfying. It never loses its audience.

That's especially impressive when it comes to ... its action. There's a phenomenal car chase, some brutal hand-to-hand combat, and an all-out battle scene to rival something out of Lawrence of Arabia. Ryan Coogler proved with Creed that he can stage a virtuoso one-take action sequence, but what he's doing here is next level and perhaps the most underrated part of the film. So many Marvel movies collapse under the weight of their third act CGI, and while yes, this film does have its fair share of semi-chaotic big action set pieces, they are all pretty riveting and visually striking,

Which finally leads me to ... the look. This film gratefully got a bigger budget than some of its other standalone spinoffs like Doctor Strange and Ant-Man, and it shows. It is a loving, detailed portrait of a whole new world, a fully-realized nation with a distinct cultural aesthetic that is immersive and simply glorious. This is a tribute to all the craftspeople who made this magnificent piece of mainstream entertainment possible, including its cinematographer and costume designer (both women!), but it is also, unmistakably, the vision of Coogler, who with just three films has made his presence known as a creative force to be reckoned with, apparently equally capable of small-scale drama and blockbuster extravaganzas.

Black Panther feels like a homecoming for him, and for so many film audience members who have dreamed of seeing a world on screen where they could not just be the heroes, but also be the masters of their own fate.

'Cloverfield Paradox' kills not just a franchise, but possibly a genre

After the critical drubbing of Bright, it's become fashionable to pile on the quality of films released direct to Netflix. Despite a splashy post-Super Bowl debut, The Cloverfield Paradox is their latest offering to land with a thud.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the streaming service won't just become a dumping ground for expensive studio films that don't stand a prayer of making a profit in theaters. My hope is that it will also be a platform for interesting independent films or up-and-coming directors who want to make outside-the-box projects.

That said, The Cloverfield Paradox, an awkward attempt to expand on the universe established with 2008's Cloverfield and 2016's even better 10 Cloverfield Lane, is a really big step in the wrong direction.

Not only does it squander an attractive, diverse and talented young cast (which includes David Oyelowo, Daniel Bruhl and Gugu Mbatha-Raw) but it may also represent the death rattle for a very specific genre of films -- the space-bound horror film.

Ever since Alien became a sensation nearly 40 years ago, Hollywood has mightily attempted to replicate its genius. Ironically, only the sequel to that film (1986's Aliens) ever managed to equal the original in terms of creativity and thrills, but by-and-large these kinds of movies have become boring and predictable.

Ironically, before watching this new Cloverfield film I re-watched 1997's Event Horizon, another Alien rip-off that has a bit of a cult following. That film didn't work because the characters we're strong enough, the scares were more gory than truly frightening and the plot machinations become so cluttered that it becomes impossible to follow the thread, let alone justify the film's existence.

Just over 20 years later, The Cloverfield Paradox makes many of the same mistakes. Although it's absurd to compare it to its predecessors, since it barely makes sense alongside them, it's worth pointing out that the previous two Cloverfield films did a phenomenal job of ratcheting up tension, giving time to really establish their characters and help establish sympathy for their heroes.

This film, however, decides to provide a bare minimum of character development before it plunges into a series of loud, hyper action sequences that increasingly make less sense and are more confusing than compelling.

We've seen all this before. The bickering between crew-members that leads to claustrophobic fist fights, the discovery of a stowaway with a mysterious past, lots of creepy crawly things. But what does it all amount to and why should we care?

I am not someone who goes into films wanting expectations to be fulfilled -- which is why I had no problems with the narrative upheavals of The Last Jedi -- but I do expect to see a coherent story effectively told (unless the director intentionally wants their film to be incoherent, which doesn't appear to be the case here).

Even Ridley Scott's follow-ups to Alien -- Prometheus and Alien: Covenant -- suffer from a lack of justification. They aren't particularly 'fun' and the points they attempt to make about humanity vs. android vs. alien life have been made before (and more effectively) in better movies. So they become essentially very well-produced, very expensive-looking horror films.

The best of the more recent space-based films -- like Gravity -- have smartly avoided supernatural subplots or alien attacks and they had more than enough tension and excitement. But the next time I see a trailer for a film about a crew stranded in space, getting picked off one-by-one, my eyes are gonna glaze over because I have grown tired of what these stories have to offer.

As far as the Cloverfield films go, Paradox creates a conundrum, because what was once a mercurial and mysterious universe has now become something leadenly stupid and obtuse. Perhaps this is the end of this series or at least a call to return to the drawing board.

For now, this ranks as a tremendous waste of time and talent. A nonsense movie that hurts the brand of not just Netflix, but smart sci-fi too.

'Never Seen It' - Episode 30 - Strong feelings about 'The Full Monty'

Since it's Oscar season and all, for our 30th (!) episode of our "Never Seen It" podcast, my wife Elizabeth Rosado and I decided to look back at a pretty unusual Best Picture nominee from twenty years ago -- the British male stripper comedy The Full Monty. While the film lost to the Titanic juggernaut, it has its fair share of dedicated fans.

The film, which is largely about wounded male pride touches on some surprisingly timely topics for today's audiences - for better or worse.

But does the movie -- which inspired a hit Broadway musical -- work? Click on the YouTube below to find out. Also check out all our previous episodes here. And, check us out (rate and subscribe) on iTunes.

The last Oscar pick-a-palooza: What's the best picture of them all?

Blade Runner 2049, snubbed

This is the last installment of my ongoing series of 2017-2018 Oscar predictions/opinion alongside Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. You can check out our takes on the supporting races here and here, as well as Best Actress, Actor and Director. And now for the biggest award of the night.

Brian: I agree that of all the snubs, the lack of support for Blade Runner 2049 is probably the most glaring. I think it's almost a lock for cinematography, but that's about as far as I think it will go on the big night.

And now to the final category of the night... Best Picture.

I agree with your assessment that 2017 was a great year for distinct directorial voices, and this category is a representation of that work. We've got a lot of strong contenders in what was a stellar year for movies (both indie and big budget). However, and I think we touches on this last year, I still don't think the expansion of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10 films is working in the way it was intended to. Let's call it the Dark Knight rule.

I think the list was originally expanded over the outrage of that benchmark film getting excluded. It was a way to honor a not-so-typical Oscar movie that may have been left out in a traditional year. Since then, we've had a few movies get nominated that might have missed the cut (I was especially fond of District 9 getting nominated), but in recent years, it hasn't really felt the case. I'm looking at the exclusion of quality big budget blockbusters like The Last Jedi, or the aforementioned Blade Runner 2049. The fact that they left it at 9 nominations irked me a little. They really couldn't have nominated one more film???

I digress... let's get to the nominees: Best Picture:

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

Will Win: The Shape of Water. I think it's picked up enough pre-Oscars hardware to make it the slight front runner. I'm still not confident in my vote. I think Three Billboards or Lady Bird could make a late push.

Should Win: I'm going to go with my favorite movie of the year, Dunkirk. I think it's Nolan's most complete film, as well as the film that most inspires hope in these dark times. I'm not sure he'll win this go around. Get Out is also very much deserving of the top honor. I'm torn here as well.

Snub/Surprise: I guess my biggest surprise was them limiting the nominations to 9 instead of the full 10. As I said, there's plenty of films that could be considered snubbed, but probably none more than Good Time. I'm not sure why this film didn't see more love, but my hope is that its stature will grow as time goes by.

That's it for my picks. It's always a pleasure doing these with you. I can't believe it's already been five years! Oh, and a congrats to your beloved Eagles on beating my Pats last night. We'll get you next year!

Adam: Dude, if Blade Runner 2049 doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a shoe at the screen. It's beyond absurd that Roger Deakins has never won. He's done amazing work in so many films - No Country for Old Men, Sicario, Skyfall -- I could go on and on. Definitely that's one of the smaller categories I'm watching closely.

I would normally agree with you about the Best Picture expansion issue, but this year I am actually largely happy with the nominees. I have a lot of problems with Three Billboards and would love to have seen a couple different films in its slot. I haven't seen Darkest Hour, and I've been hearing that it's just ok -- so that's another slot I could see going to a worthy movie.

Still, I really liked-to-loved 7 out of the 9, which ain't bad.

In some ways this group reflects that academy finally shaking up what its concept of an Oscar movie is. The fact that Get Out made it in is something akin to a miracle since it is ostensibly a horror film, albeit a thought-provoking, satirical one. But to your point, most of these movies feel like more of the same, traditional awards-caliber movies, and I guess that may never change as long as film critics by-and-large fail to see some of the artistry that is going into big budget blockbusters these days. In other words, we need more Mad Max: Fury Road's in contention for these trophies, not simply to 'please the masses' but because those type of films can be just as compelling as a period drama.

Will win: The Shape of Water. I am basing this on the strength of its showing in the nominations, and the fact that it feels like a choice that won't anger to many people. There are films I liked better, but I think The Post peaked too late, Get Out is too outside the box and Phantom Thread is too small, ditto Call Me By Your Name. I could see Lady Bird upsetting it because it is probably more accessible, but I don't know if a movie like it can win Best Picture.

I think the fact that Dunkirk isn't viewed as a real threat is bizarre, and must be paying a price for not being more of an actor's film. So that leaves Three Billboards, which I like less and less the more I think of it and whose odd attempt to redeem its racist character feels really out of step with the times we're living in.

Should win: Your case for Dunkirk is a compelling one. I agree its one of Nolan's best works and I really think if it had a big heroic leading man performance at the center of it, it would have cleaned up. I wouldn't be mad if it won, and it's certainly one of the better movies here. But for me, it's Get Out, a movie that spoke to me and the whole country at a very unique point and time, and of all of the nominated films, feels the most urgent and satisfying.

Snubs/Surprise: I don't think we will ever see a Star Wars movie in this race. It doesn't help that while critics adored The Last Jedi, a small but vocal group of fanboys despise it. And honestly, I feel like if a Star Wars movie was gonna make it here it would have been The Force Awakens, which was much more digestible for people who aren't super read-in on Star Wars already.

But Blade Runner 2049 not being here is really infuriating to me. This was the kind of smart, deep sci-fi that critics and Oscar voter types have always supposedly been clamoring for and it's been totally sidelined, it appears, for no other reason than it didn't make as much of a fortune as its studio hoped. This was a near perfect follow-up to the 1982 masterpiece original, and it's galling to me that it wasn't a more serious contender for awards. But what can you do?

Brother, it's been great walking down memory lane with you, and I'm glad we didn't allow our diametrically opposed football fandom get in the way of our mutual love of the movies. And at the end of the day, it's not the awards that matter, it's the films, and I think the ones we loved from last year have clearly already started to show their staying power -- my number on came out last February and yours in July -- so that's saying something! 'Till next year.

Flashback 1998: My favorite movies from 20 years ago

The Big Lebowski

I figured I'd interrupt this run of Oscar prognostication with Brian Wezowicz (stay tuned for more though), and come down from the euphoria of seeing my perpetual underdog Philadelphia Eagles win their first ever Super Bowl, to do one of my little flashback blog posts about my favorite movies in ten year intervals back from the current year.

I've already broken down my faves from 10 years ago -- 2008 -- and now it's time to turn the clock back even more, to the Clinton years (this one in particular was mired in the Monica Lewinsky scandal ... sidebar) and weigh in on the best of 1998, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps ironically, this is the year that now disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein allegedly tipped the scales at the Oscars to push the rom-com Shakespeare In Love past the favorite, Saving Private Ryan, in the Best Picture category, but based on those film's staying power, I am guessing Spielberg and Hanks got the last laugh on that one.

10) He Got Game - While it indeed does have many of the late career Spike Lee excesses, I still think this film could arguably be called the best basketball film ever made. Denzel Washington gives a phenomenal performance (no surprise there) as an ex-con given a brief furlough from prison in order to persuade his NBA-bound son to sign with a particular school. Sure, it's convoluted, but Lee treats the father-son dynamic with such epic sincerity, I can't help but be effected by it.

9) Ronin - An old school action film with one of the best, sustained car chases I've ever seen. I saw this one in theaters and remained surprised that it wasn't a bigger commercial hit. Robert De Niro does his standard tough guy thing but he has a great ensemble to play with here, including Sean Bean, Stellan Skarsgård and 1998 MVP Natascha McElhone (whatever happened to her?). They never make adult thrillers like this anymore, and that's a damn shame.

8) Happiness - A wildly provocative indie film that asks you identify with a child molester, among other things. This Todd Solondz film is like a Rorschach test for audiences' tolerance for the inappropriate and absurd, but it also a profoundly funny exploration of a fairly straightforward theme. It uses stunt casting (Jon Lovitz!) and brilliant character work (RIP, Philip Seymour Hoffman) to stick the landing. And whatever you think of it, you will never forget it.

7) Saving Private Ryan - Before it led to a period of 'Greatest Generation' self-congratulatory nonsense, this was simply the most viscerally exciting and realistic World War II film ever made. It's often mistaken for a pro-war movie, because it certainly makes a case for the valor of its heroes (led by a typically terrific Tom Hanks), but more engaged viewers should see that this film is clearly about tragedy, albeit with a glimmer of hope. This film demonstrated that, for the most part, that serious Spielberg was here to say.

6) The Truman Show - This before-its-time riff on the coming tide of reality television could have been a gimmicky curio if it weren't for the heartfelt performance of Jim Carrey in the lead and the fluidity of the filmmaking by director Peter Weir. It's concept -- it's a man who unbeknownst to him has been the subject of a 24-hour TV show -- has so much potential, and the choice to make it entirely about his quest to break out of his hermetically sealed world is sweet and endearing to me.

5) The Thin Red Line - The 'other' less well know World War II epic of the year, and iconoclastic director Terrence Malick's big comeback film. This moody and gorgeous looking film manages not to be overwhelmed by it's incredibly star-studded cast (including Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, John Cusack, George Clooney, Woody Harrelson and John Travolta, just to name a few) and puts us in the minds of a diverse array of soldiers who very well may be marching towards their own deaths. One of the great war films that has a much more cerebral impact than its genre peers.

The Thin Red Line

4) Buffalo '66 -  A film that I briefly used to refer to as my favorite of all time. Since then cooler heads have prevailed, especially in light of the general aura of awfulness around its writer-director-star Vincent Gallo. Still, I'll never forget how much this little indie -- about a wannabe tough guy's attempt to make an impression on the world alongside his happenstance love interest (Christina Ricci) -- had on me as a young person. It's a great movie for outsiders, and for people who march to the beat of their own drum.

3) Out of Sight - Following Get Shorty and Jackie Brown, this film represents the high water mark of great Elmore Leonard adaptations. It also is the movie that at long last turned George Clooney into the movie star that he deserved to be (although it inexplicably underperformed at the box office). And, last but not least, it was the movie that revived Steven Soderbergh's career and proved that he was uniquely suited to make smart, character-driven crime capers, and the movie world is better for it.

2) Rushmore - Although Bottle Rocket had already come out, this was the movie that introduced me to the unique charms of Wes Anderson. As a lifelong Bill Murray fan, this film was a thrill, a real revival of his career that showed he could do more shades of drama than previously shown. And with this presumably semi-autobiographical tale about a precious, cinema-obsessed adolescent's coming-of-age, Anderson hit all of his signature moves out of the park. It's a triumph comedically, it's got a winsome air about it, and of course the production design is peerless.

1) The Big Lebowski - A big flop that has since turned into quite possibly the most popular Coen brothers film of all time, and certainly one of my favorite movies ever. A laugh-out-loud funny homage to classic detective stories, with a burnt out stoner (played to perfection by Jeff Bridges) in the lead. Clearly, this film has become one of the most quotable, instantly recognizable cult phenomenons in movies, but it is also slyly smart, wonderfully weird and consistently original in a way that really warms my heart. Sometimes, there is a man ...

PAST TOP 10 FAVORITE LISTS
1974 #1 movie - The Godfather Part II
1975 #1 movie - Nashville
1976 #1 movie - Taxi Driver
1977 #1 movie - Star Wars
1984 #1 movie - Ghostbusters
1985 #1 movie - Fletch
1986 #1 movie - Blue Velvet
1987 #1 movie - The Untouchables
1994 #1 movie - Pulp Fiction
1995 #1 movie - Heat
1996:#1 movie - Fargo
1997 #1 movie - Boogie Nights
2004 #1 movie - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005 #1 movie - A History of Violence
2006 #1 movie - Casino Royale
2007 #1 movie - There Will Be Blood
2008 #1 movie - The Wrestler

The 5th annual Oscar pick-a-palooza: Are these the Best Directors?

Patty Jenkins

And here is yet another installment of my ongoing series of Oscar predictions/opinions alongside Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. You can check out our takes on this year's supporting races here and here, and Best Actress here and Best Actor, here.

Brian: Good Time! I totally agree with you on Robert Pattinson's much deserved nomination. He completely engulfed himself in that role and shed whatever Twilight baggage was still left on him.

We've got two more categories to go in this year's Pick-A-Palooza. Next up is best director. It's a shame that the academy didn't extend this category like it did best picture, because it sets itself up for some snubs (most notably Ben Affleck missing the cut for Argo as it went on to win Best Picture). 

However, I think this is a very strong category and one that I think is now up for grabs. For the longest time, I thought Guillermo del Toro was a runaway front runner for this category, but The Shape Of Water seems to be dogged by recent accusations of plagiarism. It's a shame, because I feel he is a truly visionary director that is deserved of larger industry recognition. He's in the same mold as Peter Jackson... a big budget director that doesn't lose his sense of emotion and character development. I'm truly torn on this one, as I don't see a locked in pick here.

Director:

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

Will Win: Jordan Peele. I'm going out on a big limb here. I have no basis for this prediction, but I feel like the Academy will recognize his truly groundbreaking work on this film that felt like not just a great film, but an instant classic. I think he managed to perfectly blend genres and social commentary in my second favorite movie of 2017. Speaking of favorite movies of 2017...

Should Win: Christopher Nolan. Nolan has been one of my favorite directors since I saw Memento, and he's only managed to get better with time. Dunkirk, to me, is his crowning achievement. A big budget war film that maintains a sense of emotion and character throughout. Maybe it's the dark times we live in, but this one's message of hope and honor gave me hope that we might make it through.

Snub/Surprise: Plenty to choose from here, but I'm going to go with a director whose film was not nominated for best picture. Patty Jenkins for her work on Wonder Woman. It didn't break any new grounds in terms of storytelling, but man did it feel like a breath of fresh air. Another snub, for me, was Steven Spielberg for his phenomenal job directing The Post. I'm not sure you could make an argument for knocking any of the nominated director's out of the top 5, but Spielberg comes the closest.

Who takes your directing prize?

Adam: This year was a strong one for distinct directorial voices-- I was just talking to a friend about this the other night, that with rare exceptions of filmmakers like Wes Anderson, there are very few directors with an unmistakable visual style or auteur voice, or at least these days. One of the flaws of big blockbuster movies is that they tend to subvert the voice of the director (although based on early buzz Black Panther isn't going to make that mistake).

There were a lot of great established names and newcomers jockeying for just five spots, so there were inevitably going to be some disappointments here, but I was actually very happy with the final five, which feature a woman, African-American and Latino, which is refreshing since this category - with three exceptions -- has only awarded white men.

Sean Baker

I hadn't heard anything about any controversy surrounding Del Toro, in fact I figured he was the safest guy here.

Will win: Guillermo Del Toro. If Lady Bird overperforms I could see Greta Gerwig winning. There is a lot of emotional support behind her nomination, and there are compelling reasons to award a woman this year, and she is worthy. It's also an absurd travesty that no African-American filmmaker has ever won Best Director, so awarding Jordan Peele could right that wrong. But to me, Del Toro seems like a no brainer, non-controversial choice. He's likable, has built up a great reputation and he made a lovely movie that will be easy for the Oscars to embrace. Curiously, he'll continue a recent trend of Latino directors cleaning up at the Oscars.

Should win: Jordan Peele. I admire everyone nominated. Especially, Paul Thomas Anderson, who is one of my favorite directors and someone who deserves to win this award sooner rather than later, but there is not film I admired more this past year than Get Out, and more than anything that movie is the singular vision of its writer-director Jordan Peele. It's a remarkable achievement for someone's debut film, it was assured, it was fascinating, thought-provoking and funny. It really was a virtuoso piece of genre filmmaking and it deserves to be recognized here (and for screenplay).

Snub/Surprise: Certainly, Steven Spielberg could have made the cut for The Post, obviously he has plenty of hardware, so if he doesn't get invited to this party it's fine. I really wish Blade Runner 2049 has been more welcomed by the awards season crowd, and Denis Villeneuve is hugely responsible for pulling off that creative feat, he's another person I hope to see win Best Director someday. Patty Jenkins is someone who I think in a weaker year might have made the finally five for Wonder Woman, but I definitely admire what she did. Would have loved to see the Safdie Brothers get a nod for Good Time. But I guess my biggest disappointment is that Sean Baker has not been recognized for his incredible work on The Florida Project, a little masterpiece that has been undervalued all year.

5th annual Oscar pick-a-palooza: We've got the Best Actor blues

Robert Pattison in Good Time

And here is yet another installment of my ongoing series of Oscar predictions/opinions alongside Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. You can check out our takes on this year's supporting races here and here, and Best Actress here. And now for the bros.

Brian: I, too, really enjoyed Meryl Streep's performance in The Post. It felt raw in a way a lot of her recent work hasn't felt.

As we move from, quite possibly, the least surprising group of nominations, to a category with a couple question marks in it. Not necessarily that these performances didn't warrant a nomination, but rather that there were some others that could have a legitimate gripe. We also have a major point of #MeToo controversy with Casey Affleck not appearing at this year's event to present the Best Actress category. Plus, we have a real head scratcher in this category. I'll get into that with my picks.

Let's dive right in to the nominations.

Lead Actor: 
Timothée Chalamet, Call Me by Your Name
Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread
Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out
Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour
Denzel Washington, Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Will Win: Gary Oldman. I feel like that if Oldman wins for this performance, it will almost be a lifetime achievement award. I'm sure he gives a fine performance here, but it feels similar to DiCaprio winning for The Revenant, or Martin Scorsese winning for The Departed. Not necessarily the best of their respective years, but it just happened to be their time.

Should Win: I feel like there are three performances that I feel are more deserving than Gary Oldman's. His role just screams "Oscar fodder" to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Chalamet, Day-Lewis (in his supposed last film role) and especially Kaluuya all give more ground breaking performances in their films. I'm just sadly convinced that they will just have to settle for being nominated.

Tom Hanks in The Post

Snub/Surprise: As I mentioned earlier, the biggest head scratcher is Denzel Washington's nomination. I think he's one of, if not the best actor of all-time, but this one felt like he was getting nominated on his name alone. The movie was ravaged by critics, and his nomination screams Golden Globe-nominating the stars to me.

This leads to my snub... James Franco for The Disaster Artist. The recent allegations of sexual impropriety against Franco derailed his Oscar campaign, and Denzel was thrown in to fill the void. If this was the case, there were better performances that could have been rewarded... namely Ryan Gosling in Blade Runner 2049 and Tom Hanks in The Post. Heck, if they want to really go out there... I'd say that Hugh Jackman deserves a nod for his wonderful work in Logan.

What do you think?

Adam: It is weird that Best Actor is usually one of the most stacked races, but this year it may be the biggest forgone conclusion of the night, for better or worse. Perhaps no nomination made me happier than Daniel Kaluuya's for Best Actor (other than probably Jordan Peele's nomination for Best Director) and yeah there's no question the shadow of #MeToo will loom largely over this one, probably just for the better.

As someone who feels pretty strongly that Denzel Washington was robbed last year in his neck-and-neck competition with Casey Affleck, that Oscar winner's self-excommunication this year feels like karma.

Will win: Gary Oldman. This is the forgone conclusion I'm referring to. Almost from the moment it was revealed that he was playing historic icon Winston Churchill under heavy prosthetics, it was pretty much guaranteed he would be nominated and probably win. I haven't seen the film so I can't say if it's one of those transcendent transformations like Ben Kingsley in Gandhi where the actor 'becomes' the person they're playing.

But clearly Oldman has been one of the premiere actors of his generation and it's sort of shocking that he's never one or only been nominated once previously. The one knock against him is some pretty tone deaf interviews he's given recently on the subject of political correctness (yes, he defended Mel Gibson) and long dormant allegations of domestic abuse about his ex have resurfaced. But none of his controversies seem to have gotten enough traction to derail him at this point, as they appeared to derail James Franco.

Should win: This is a really tough one. I loved Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in Phantom Thread -- but the man has three Best Actor awards, THREE. And two of those wins came in the last decade. So while this is his last performance (supposedly) and a terrific one, I would personally pick Daniel Kaluuya who brought depth and emotion to what could have been an intellectual, genre exercise. His performance isn't showy at all and asks him to be almost frustratingly passive at times, but Kaluuya owns his character's indecisiveness and justifies it with a harrowing backstory from his youth.

I wouldn't be the least upset if Timothee Chalamet won either, he was incredible in Call Me By Your Name, giving a very smart and sophisticated performance even though he's only 22. My love for Denzel Washington is well-documented, and as it has been widely reported his performance in Roman J. Israel, Esq is far better than the film it's in. God I wish that character could be featured in a less cliched, more focused movie, but unfortunately, I think you're right, that it's here because James Franco isn't.

Snub/Surprise: Speaking of James Franco, he was truly brilliant in The Disaster Artist, a terrific film that will probably be relegated to a cult curiosity in part because of Franco's transgressions with women over the years. He will not be the first or the last actor who's problematic personal life will raise questions about whether or not to embrace their work. It's going to present a lot of challenges in the short and long term. I am not surprised Franco paid a price here, and I'm not sad he did. But it raises questions going forward about how much the world outside the movies should influence who we choose to recognize for their achievements.

I agree that I would have really loved to see Tom Hanks in here for his richly deserved work in The Post, I was not a Sully fan, but he was great in this, Bridge of Spies and Captain Phillips, and yet has managed to be snubbed for them all, I remember when people used to roll their eyes about Hanks being nominated all the time, now he's not nominated enough. THANKS TRUMP!

I also loved Gosling's work in Blade Runner 2049 and Jackman's in Logan, but my biggest hoped for--never-was-gonna-be nomination was Robert Pattinson for Good Time. I know haters of the Twilight movies (which i have never seen) might think this is absurd, but he was as good as a young Robert DeNiro in Good Time, a riveting crime drama that deserved far more recognition than it got.