Oscars giveth and taketh away with 'Green Book' victory

Well, if nothing else that was a very memorable Academy Awards ceremony last night. I agree with most of the hot takes about how the infamously host-less show went down -- it was definitely a real mixed bag.

Some very deserving nominees won -- Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse taking Best Animated Film was especially satisfying to me -- and there was Green Book, which will likely be the most polarizing Best Picture winner since Crash.

Now I haven't seen the film, but even the most charitable reviews I've seen from people say it's basically two fantastic performances in a subpar, problematic film. The fact that groundbreaking films like Roma, The Favourite and Black Panther won big awards, but still came up short does demonstrate just how fractured the Oscar voters are, it's almost like becoming increasingly like the U.S. electorate.

Anyway, here are my biggest takeaways that nobody needs and no one asked for:

The show was better off without a host - I will fully admit I thought this was going to be a awkward disaster, and now, like a lot of folks, I'm starting to see that the host was always not useful. They're usually uncomfortable and so is the audience, and they end up slowing everything down, when really all we want to see is the awards winners. Although, if Maya Rudolph, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were to split the duties next year, I wouldn't be even a little bit upset about it.

The Black Panther victories were the sweetest - There was a lot of talk heading into the ceremony that the Marvel blockbuster and cultural phenomenon might not win a single award, and instead it ended up getting three very well-deserved ones for its beautiful costumes, set design and score. Of course, I wish it had won Best Picture, but I am thrilled that it wasn't totally snubbed.

Spike Lee stole the show - Speaking of rectifying snubs, Spike Lee's genuine joy at finally getting recognized for his terrific work on BlacKkKlansman was very heartening. And despite the fact that president is trying to troll his acceptance speech with racist illusions to his intelligence or lack thereof, the actual content of Lee's halting acceptance speech was quite profound if only people paid more attention to it.

Olivia Coleman shocker was fantastic - It's so rare when someone genuinely pulls off a shocking upset in one of the acting categories, and this one was a doozy. Everyone, including Coleman I'm sure, went into the night expecting Glenn Close to finally win her long coveted Oscar, but the thing is Coleman's film (The Favourite) is considered vastly superior and her performance was arguably more deserving. Still, I can't help but feel a little bad for Close.

Missed opportunities - I like Rami Malek a lot, and although I've heard nothing but bad things about Bohemian Rhapsody but I have heard he's terrific in it. I only wish he had used some part of his Best Actor speech to acknowledge, even indirectly, the alleged victims of the film's director, Bryan Singer. Also, the Best Picture win for Green Book just seems like a cop-out. Roma was a Netflix movie. Black Panther was a superhero film. BlacKkKlansman was -- I dunno -- too black? Who knows why far better films were passed over, but I feel like the Best Picture winner should either be the best film (think Moonlight) or at the very least a film that has a reasonable claim to be (think Spotlight).

Are Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper actually in love? - Ok, I'm being a little facetious here, but I will say the staging and execution of their duet from A Star Is Born was really something to behold, and may go down as the most memorable moment of the night. It served to both highlight how much genuine chemistry these two superstars have and also how unfairly maligned their movie was despite being a massive critical and commercial success. They're going to be just fine, but honestly that movie was not by any means bad.

What are we to do with the Oscars? Ratings went slightly up reportedly, but of course all network television viewership is down. It is by its very nature an old, stodgy affair. Sure the academy is more diverse but is still an insanely skewed 69% male, which probably explains the fact that only one woman has won Best Director ever, and few have ever even been nominated. Like the film industry itself, the awards show has a lot of work and growing to do if it wants to stay relevant. Last night was neither a total victory or a total loss, but maybe just a snapshot of an American stable in transition.

Wait a second, is 'Superman III' actually good?

I've had a peculiar relationship with Superman III over the years. I loved it as a child -- I think I was just drawn to the absurdity and the attractiveness of its infamous poster art, which featuring Christopher Reeve cradling a terrified Richard Pryor as they flew over what appeared to be the Grand Canyon.

Of course, as an adult I came to see it as the campy curio it is. When I introduced the film last night at a specialty screening at Alamo Drafthouse, I made a point of saying there's never been another superhero movie like it and there never will be again. Imagine a new Justice League movie -- co-starring Kevin Hart as a facsimile of the same character he plays in about every other movie.

It wouldn't happen, it couldn't happen. Only in 1983, with a particular set of oddball circumstances, could Superman III happen.

It's almost universally condemned now as a bad movie. Pryor went on record as hating it, Christopher Reeve clearly did too (even though he got to show more range in this one than arguably any other Superman film), and yet it has endured as a meme-worth classic.

It's definitely a guilty pleasure for me. I've watched it twice recently, once to prepare for my hosting gig and the second time actually during it, and I'm starting to think of it as a great piece of fatally flawed pop art.

Hear me out. It's the Reeve performance that gets better to me every time I see it. He's so light on this feet in the comic scenes, which is especially impressive considering his lumbering frame. And he's so damn credible as Superman. I think any actor who plays that role doesn't get enough credit. With Batman, the cowl does a lot of the work for you, but as Superman if you don't look the part, and if you don't know how to use your body in the right ways you can look downright buffoonish, but he never does.

Richard Pryor is another story. His performance is so unfunny it somehow becomes funny again. He is such an oddball screen presence, not exactly handsome but fascinating to watch at all times. It's an unbelievably twitchy, detached performance. His Gus Gorman is not really a person but more of a collection of tics that are either child-like or dunderheaded.

At the time, Roger Ebert suggested that Pryor's infamous self-immolation in the early 1980s had somehow changed the legendary comedian's temperament, essentially made him into a too soft, nice guy on screen. Save for a couple stand-up comedy performance movies, Ebert might have been right.

Besides a sly, quieter performance in Eddie Murphy's underrated Harlem Nights, his 1980s output is strangely neutered. I know Pryor was privately jealous of Bill Cosby's success during this time period, so perhaps he thought if he similarly dulled his harder edges he might be a more palatable success. Either way, that tension makes his borderline minstrel-y performance her a meta-marvel.

I think Annette O'Toole is luminous and lovely in the film at the incredibly thirsty Lana Lang, and I've far too long slept on Robert Vaughn's oily performance here as a poor man's Gene Hackman. His role is far funnier than I remembered it, and I love that his biggest ambition in the first act of the film, the inciting incident that inspires his nascent super-villainy is his quest to control the coffee industry.

The movie's deficits are well-documented: the effects are mostly terrible, the movie is really overlong (my wife fell asleep during both recent viewings) and pretty slight on action for a superhero movie.

And yet, I cannot look away from it. It not as rip-roaringly hilarious as Showgirls or The Room, but it may be my favorite noble failure of all time.

Harrowing documentary 'Lorena' should be essential viewing

I was old enough to be fairly cognizant of the Lorena Bobbitt case when it was going on but now I must admit that I was just as guilty as many Americans who ignorantly fixated on her alleged crime -- severing her husband's penis while he was sleeping, fleeing their home and flinging it out the window of her car -- than on the circumstances that led to it.

I remembered that her husband's penis was miraculously found, re-attached and remained functional, I recalled that John Wayne Bobbitt would go on to make a porn, and I remembered little else.

Shame on me and shame on all of us. Because this story is far more complicated and compelling and thankfully producer Jordan Peele has given this harrowing, heartbreaking case the sensitive and detailed exploration it deserves.

With 20/20 hindsight, the advent of #MeToo and about 25 years behind us, we can finally collectively see what should have been painfully obvious to any impartial observer at the time: that Lorena Bobbitt was not some manic 'woman scorned' (John Wayne Bobbitt's patently absurd claim that Lorena attacked him because he rebuffed her sexual advances would be laughable if it weren't such a heinous and destructive lie) but in reality she was the victim of systematic physical and sexual abuse, so horrific that you will most likely not just have sympathy for her but outright root for her when these four incredible episodes are done.

This film gives this case the same treatment as the O.J. Simpson trial received in the epic, landmark film O.J. Made in America, and while on the surface this story was always treated as more of a tabloid curio than that racially divisive criminal case, but what this Amazon Prime project confirms is that not only did this story dovetail with that one, but it also reveals a lot about our culture's willingness to give toxic men infinite chances and how much domestic violence was and is a non-priority in this country.

Remarkably, the film includes the participation of both Bobbitts as well as a number of character witnesses, plus people intimately involved in the story (from the officers who found his penis to the star witness whose testimony proved just how traumatized Lorena was in the days leading up to the incident.

Mr. Bobbitt, a Trump loving, gun toting pathologic liar, emerges as one of the most monstrous figures I've seen in on screen, and part of what makes him so disturbing is his utter banality. This was a perpetually unemployed, inarticulate, serial abuser of women, who somehow was elevated to the status of hero by the likes of Howard Stern and still shows no remorse (at least publicly) for his crimes.

Meanwhile, Lorena, who has since re-married and re-made her life, is revealed to be a truly inspirational human being. This film restores the dignity she was robbed of from so many glib comedians and cable news personalities who sought to exploit her and/or vilify her.

The film is appropriately called Lorena, because after all it is what was happening to her that led to all of this madness, and her experience for far too long has taken a backseat to a couple inches of appendage, and which has been the cause of such much pain for her and eventually many others.

The film is a reminder that while the scandals of the '90s seem quaint in comparison to the crisis we're currently enduring in the White House, it doesn't mean that there isn't much to learn from our very recent past.

Obligatory Valentine's post: My favorite on-screen couples

Obviously, Valentine's Day is just another day, although the powers that be won't allow most of us to think that. And I'm no different -- buying gifts, posting mushy Instagrams about my wife -- and here I am with the obligatory annual Valentine's Day post.

This idea kind of just popped in there (think Dan Aykroyd at the end of Ghostbusters) and it was: off the top of my head, who are my favorite movie couples.... this is by no means a complete list, but I just rattled these off and I will the briefly give me thoughts about all of them.

Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant in North By Northwest - This may be the most sensuous of all Alfred Hitchcock's parings. Like many of his icy blondes, Eva Marie Saint is a very sexually aware woman, and her chemistry is white hot opposite a handsome, aging Grant. Their train make-out is as hot as anything I've seen in a movie.

Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase in Foul Play - These two are at the peak of the 1970s cuteness, and they have a loopy, lovable vibe as a couple in this comedic Hitchcock homage (which fares much better than Mel Brooks' High Anxiety if you ask me). He's all deadpan one liners and pratfalls and she has just about the cutest grin in movie history. What's not to love?

Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally - The quintessential couple in one may be the benchmark for all romantic comedies since its release 30 years ago! They are an odd match physically, but when you watch him make her laugh or when he's aghast at her famous fake orgasm, it and they make perfect sense on-screen.

Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly in Bound - In the Wachowskis' Bound, these two rose about the inherent salacious nature of the material, to deliver utterly convincing performances of two women desperately in love with each other with a particularly toxic man in their way.

Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County - I am sure fans of the book and movie fans in general thought it was bizarre when tough guy Clint adapted and cast himself in a best-selling weepie about a brief but heartbreakingly romantic affair. But it turned out to be one of his loveliest movies and one his most touching performances. Despite its hokey, old-fashioned narrative wrapper, this is still one of my favorite romances.

Burt Reynolds and Sally Field in Smokey and the Bandit - These two were a couple in real life and it really shows. There's real love in their eyes amid the goofy chaos of this movie, in which she's a barefoot, runaway bride and he's an ace bootlegger ... or something. This is the height of '70s throwaway joy, totally inconsequential but wonderfully charming at the same time.

Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher in the Star Wars trilogy - This was probably the first on-screen romance I was consistently exposed to and as I came of age, and understood that their grumpy banter was in actuality 'flirting' I became much more impressed with their doomed love affair over the course of the original trilogy. I say doomed because by the time of The Force Awakens they're estranged. I like that their relationship is left always unresolved since everything about their lives is fleeting.

Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in Adam's Rib - When people namecheck legendary on-screen couples Tracy and Hepburn always runs off the tongue, even with people who've never seen their movies. This one is a great place to start when it comes to their on-screen work together. The premise is absurd -- they play a married couple representing opposite sides in a contentious divorce case. Tracy, as in all their films, ends up getting put in his place by Hepburn, and you will swoon.

Denzel Washington and Sarita Choudury in Mississippi Masala - I dare you find a sexier on-screen couple than these two in this criminally under-seen culture clash romance that should earn a lot of points for being woke to some compelling racial dynamics and themes well before there was anything resembling a national conversation about these issues.

Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon in Harold and Maude - I was a late convert to this one, but after a few viewings I understand the hype. It's a great tribute to misfits and iconoclasts. Ruth Gordon's Maude is the kind of person we all aspire to be -- self assured, irrepressible and honest -- whereas But Cort is the sad sack we all kind of. Somehow they meet in the middle and change each others lives. A hugely influential pairing.

Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis in Witness - My man is on this list twice because he's just that good. A wonderful film about a big city cop who must embed himself in the amish community in order protect a child witness to a murder and his mother, also provides space for a beautifully observed romance between Ford and McGillis as the cop and Amish woman. This is a classic, old-fashioned story that never manages to feel too dated because of the richness of the emotion.

George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez in Out of Sight - Their career paths couldn't have been more different -- but back in 1998, George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez were budding, hungry stars looking to make their mark as movie stars and this cult classic Steven Soderbergh film was the perfect vehicle for both of them to strut their stuff. Clooney would go on to have great chemistry with several future leading ladies (think Vera Farmiga in Up in the Air), but this may been his best on-screen romance.

Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in Annie Hall - Before Woody Allen had the ick factor all over him, he was genuinely likable and even a little cute in this iconic Best Picture winner. He and Diane Keaton make beautiful neurotic music together and their relationship still resonates as realistic after several decades of social upheaval. Woody Allen's legacy will likely forever be tarnished, but this pairing's power is undeniable.

Adam Sandler and Emily Watson in Punch-Drunk Love - No film has brought more of Adam Sandler's talents and charisma to bear than this P.T. Anderson romance. And although Watson is almost angelically serene and patient with Sandler's manic depressive bruiser, her disposition lends the whole movie an even more whimsical, fable-like flair. No one saw this movie coming and unfortunately Sandler never made another one quite like it.

Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Speaking of failing to live up one's early promise -- Jim Carrey, much? -- this film cast an against type Jim Carrey as an emotionally stunted recluse who discovers his inner romantic when he links up with manic pixie dreamgirl Kate Winslet. This film may not hold up as well for some people as it does for me, but I still think it's one of the best films about breaking up I've ever seen, and Winslet and Carrey are something to behold on-screen together.

Re-watching 'Fatal Attraction' is fascinating in new era

I've always been a fan of the 1987 blockbuster thriller Fatal Attraction, even if I thought it's gender politics were a little bit off, to say the least. There's an argument to be made during at least the first third of the film that Michael Douglas is actually the antagonist for using and discarding his new mistress (Glenn Close) over the course of a weekend while his wife is away.

As the plot churns along Close goes from justifiably aggrieved woman to hard-charging psychopath, and its a testament to her unforgettable performance that she does so without ever sacrificing her dignity.

The infamous finale, which was famously re-shot when test audiences disapproved of the initial, more bleak one -- is still a pulpy, undeniably fun piece of entertainment -- but its shock value somewhat diminishes the more sophisticated story that led us to that point.

The original ending is startling in its pitch black brutality. We learn that Close has been 'killed' and the police arrest Douglas, since it stands to reason he is the suspect. A somewhat cheesy scene follows when his wife (played by the reliably sweet staple of the era, Anne Archer) discovers a threatening tape Close's character recorded earlier, where she alludes to the idea that she will eventually kill herself.



I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure that this tape would definitively exonerate Douglas, but either way the very last shot is almost unbearably dark. It's Close serenely sitting on the bathroom floor (quick cuts remind the audience that Douglas essentially placed the knife in front of her. He backs out of her apartment (after nearly murdering her) as she wears what can only be described as a haunting expression.

Not enough can be said about how fantastic Close is in this movie. I'm excited to see her having something of a late career resurgence. And this part, ironically her most famous one, is so unlike anything else she did before or since.

Meanwhile, Douglas has a tricky part. He is a complete dirtbag for much of the film and yet somehow, someway you have a rooting interest for him and Archer at the end. Maybe it's their adorable daughter (who feels very real in this) or simply his innate likability, but it's one of the great tricks that this movie pulls off that your allegiance switches to him even though he is a pretty undeniably venal and misogynistic character.

One of the oddest parts of the movie which I never grasped until now, is the Close character at least claims to be carrying Douglas' child -- a premise that I presume we're supposed to believe is a lie but is also never entirely disproven, which gives the whole movie and its bloody conclusion an even more macabre air than it already has.

Ostensibly, we're supposed to look at that final shot of the family portrait (in the theatrically-released version) and think all is right with this household now that (spoiler alert) Close has been dispatched, but this is a couple that has not just been broken by infidelity, but adultery with someone who put them and their child in imminent danger. That is not a fissure that would ever be easily repaired, and maybe never can be.

Also, all the attributes of the Close character -- the temper, the neediness and possessiveness, could easily be conveyed by a male character should the story ever be reimagined. As much as I fight the movie to be a salacious delight, a movie of 'its time,' I've always felt uncomfortable with its literal home-wrecker ethos run amok.

But maybe that's what makes the movie worthwhile, that it can be interpreted a little differently every time you see it. I will say it's still easy to see why it was such a runaway hit, it really moves it won't be ignored either.

Oscar-a-palooza 6 finale: Who will take home Best Picture?

This is the last installment of an annual series of Oscar predictions/opinion posts featuring yours truly and the legendary Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. Check out our takes on the rest of this year's major categories here.

Brian: I, too, am glad that Peter Farrelly and Bryan Singer didn't get nominated. Singer's fall from grace is a real disappointment to me because 1) his alleged actions are so despicable and 2) I've really enjoyed his films. I get separating the art from the artist, but it's really hard to watch his films anymore. The Usual Suspects, which is one of my favorite movies of all-time, now has the added Singer stink on top of it in addition to Kevin Spacey. Yeah, there were rumblings about Singer before, but they were never really this loud.

OK, moving on to our final category: Best Picture. This ties in to my previous statement because we have a Singer directed (but not finished) film in Bohemian Rhapsody. A film that I said in my initial email that's a in the 50s as far as critical praise, and yet might actually win this thing. That, coupled with Vice and its 60% rating, could lead us to the worst critically praised Best Picture winner of all-time. I'm not sure it happens, but there's a chance and that is totally weird to me.

This category is another WTF category with some major snubs and surprises. On the good side, we're living in year 10-11 of The Dark Knight rule and we finally have our first superhero movie nominated for Best Picture (Black Panther). We've got a Spike Lee movie getting love (BlacKkKlansman) in a way that we haven't seen with one of his films in years. We've also got another signature Alfonso Cuaron masterpiece (Roma), which signaled Netflix's emergence as a legitimate awards season player.

However, I can't get past all the stinkers in this category (Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book) that are here at the expense of other, better films. This category is allowed to go up to ten films, and yet we don't have a full slate of nominees. I honestly don't understand this rule and its criteria for getting films nominated.

Here are the nominees:

Black Panther
BlacKkKlansman
Bohemian Rhapsody
The Favourite
Roma
Green Book
A Star Is Born
Vice

Who Will Win: Honestly, it's anyone's guess. We saw Black Panther jump up the list after its SAG upset. I also can't shake this feeling that Bohemian Rhapsody has a chance, warts and all. If I had to guess, I would go with Roma or A Star Is Born. Roma is a note perfect film that shows you don't need a "big" story to make a sprawling epic. A Star Is Born is a great film that I thought would make a bigger splash than it has.

Who Should Win: Black Panther was an epic film with rich and complex characters and a great story to boot. If we're ever going to see a superhero movie win Best Picture, this is the year. 

Snubs/Surprises: Where do I begin? First Man and Hereditary have legitimate claims for those final two spots. Both were critical darlings that somehow just didn't connect with audiences at the Box Office. I feel like we'll be talking about Hereditary the same way we do other classic horror films in 10-15 years. Eighth Grade somehow didn't get the Lady Bird quirky comedy slot like last year. First Reformed was another major snub that was inexplicably overlooked in this and other categories.

For me, the biggest snub was Annihilation, my favorite movie of 2018. I've seen it a few times and each time I get something more out of it. I know the Academy typically overlooks "weird" sci-fi system, but I really wish it wouldn't. I was hooked from the moment I saw this film, and I really wish it received more recognition for the masterpiece I believe it to be.

So there you have it. Who takes home your top prize?

Finally, thanks again for doing this with me. I really enjoy it and I can't believe we're already in year 6 of this.

Adam: Yeah I am still a fan of The Usual Suspects, but there's no doubt that its legacy has taken a beating. And oddly enough, despite the widely reported, credible allegations against him, he's somehow managed to be signed on to direct a remark of the Schwarzenegger cult film Red Sonja. I'll never understand why people like him and Mel Gibson keep getting second, third and fourth chances while others are rightfully pushed off-stage for good.

On a more positive note, I think last year was a great year for films and I saw a lot of work that really inspired me and moved me -- for instance, Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse was such a euphoric cinematic experience for me that it truly lifted my spirits and restored my faith in the future of movies. That'd being said I don't feel a lot of 2018's best were represented in the Best Picture category. I agree that Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody are two of the worst reviewed nominees since they expanded the category (I think the worst rated ever was the forgettable Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close). I disagree, however, with your belief that either of them can win. I could see four maybe even five of these movies winning the big prize.

I think Black Panther has a lot of momentum off the SAG win but perhaps the academy will say a nomination is enough of a reward for a superhero film. I think BlackKklansman could be a sentimental favorite -- its weirdly very topical thanks to Virginia's blackface scandal -- and if Spike Lee were to pull off an upset, it could maybe take the top prize. A Star is Born could be this year's Argo, like you suggested before, since a lot of people think Bradley Cooper was snubbed for Best Director, Green Book -- while polarizing as hell -- has been the safe choice for some time now -- and then there's Roma, which is widely being hailed as a cinematic achievement, but perhaps will suffer from its Netflix tie-in. Could it be the first Best Picture winner with virtually no theatrical grosses?

Who will win: Roma, It's really really close. I feel like this could have been A Star is Born's award to lose but it peaked too early. I think Black Panther would be amazing but I just think it'll suffer from not enough acting branch support. I think BlackKklansman has always been an also-ran in this competition. I love The Favourite to death but its too quirky to win. And I think neither Vice nor Bohemian Rhapsody is loved enough to win (remember the new system is tiered and preferential voting, so basically the movie the most people don't hate usually wins this).

That leaves Green Book and Roma, and I find it hard to believe with all the controversy over its alleged whitewashing of history and cultural tone-deafness, I just don't see Hollywood endorsing it with their top prize. And I think Roma, as unconventional a picture as it is, has virtually no detractors. It's not my personal favorite of the year, but it is an unassailably worthy winner.

Who should win: Black Panther. This has always been very personal for me. As an African-American cinephile, this was the kind of movie I've always been waiting for. A sophisticated epic that had both the wit and world building of Star Wars but also the moral complexity of the Blade Runner films. Regardless of who wins, I believe this was THE movie of last year and certainly the one that has had the greatest cultural impact of any of the movies released in 2018. Wakanda forever!

Snubs/surprises: Again First Man has been criminally under-appreciated. Honestly, I wish Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse were taken seriously enough to be included, but Black Panther clearly already took up that lane. Eighth Grade was a magical movie, hopefully it'll become the cult classic it deserves to be. And I'm totally with you on Hereditary, such a great advance of the horror genre. And yeah I'd be happy to see First Reformed, Mary Poppins Returns, Crazy Rich Asians, Annihilation, The Death of Stalin, You Were Never Really Here and A Quiet Place in place of Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody and/or Green Book, but that's just my two cents.

p.s. I neglected to mention it when we talked Best Actor, but I just want to give a shout out to Nicolas Cage and his performance in Mandy, as well as the movie itself. For obvious reasons, a movie as experimental, non-linear, gory and strange as that one never stood a chance of ever having any kind of awards consideration, but it was one of the most striking, unforgettable cinematic experiences i had all year, and I could see this one creeping into my top 10 when all is said and done.

p.p.s. Thanks for doing this too!

'Star Wars' title obsession shows what's become toxic about fandom

I am a somewhat above average Star Wars obsessive. Have I ever dressed up like a character from the series -- no -- but my wedding cake did have Han and Leia on it. It's safe to say the original trilogy had a big impact on me, just like millions of others.

So I understand why people are somewhat precious about how the saga has been handled since. That being said the recent flurry of anticipation around what this year's trilogy concluding Episode IX's title has really gotten me anxious, in a most unpleasant way.

Will it be The Balance of the Force (which leaks suggested it might be) or A New Order (which would be a nice bookend to 1977's A New Hope, a.k.a. Star Wars) or something maddeningly inaccurate like Attack of the Clones. Frankly, why do we care so much?

Essentially there is a sea of fanboys and girls out there who are going to judge the entire quality of this film, and by extension the arch of his franchise all off of a movie's title! Do we not see how that is insane?

I don't know that The Empire Strikes Back is the most compelling title of all time -- it's certainly meaningly if you're not steeped in the mythology of the first film -- and yet it is widely considered to be the greatest Star Wars movie ever made.

Return of the Jedi is even less inspired, but it doesn't diminish the appeal of that film for me either.

I understand the ravenous desire to procure any new detail or information about such a highly anticipated final entry in this new trilogy. There are so many unanswered questions, among them how will Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia be written out of the saga and how will Billy Dee Williams' Lando Calrissian be written back in? There is so much intense pressure of J.J. Abrams to please a fanbase that is at the very least bitterly divided over the last official entry, The Last Jedi.

But I fear that no matter what comes out about this movie there will be a lot of premature attacks and handwringing before a single frame has been seen. This hype will likely carry on until we finally get a first trailer, which will inspire meticulous breakdowns of every shot and all sorts of preconceived notions will be set in stone.

Say what you will about The Last Jedi -- an I am unabashed supporter of it -- but I think we can all agree that the trailer for the film, as kinetic as it was, didn't really give away what kind of film The Last Jedi was going to be, nor did the title.

I remember, for instance, being a little nervous when The Force Awakens trailer came out that the movie looked great but also a little humorless, but then the finished product came out and I was delighted by what a comedic romp it was at times.

When it came to The Last Jedi, I simply assumed the title referred to Luke Skywalker, but now I wonder if it could be considered far more ambiguous. Is Rey the last Jedi? Is that title a misdirect.

All of this is to say that I wish Star Wars fandom could somehow become a little less judgmental and hostile. I know, for many of us, the prequels made us deeply cynical and wary of any new Star Wars offering. Our desire to see more of this world frequently clashes with a frustration with the cosmetic and thematic changes to it.

I feel like The Last Jedi was really trying to mess with the formula only to discover that people think that want the formula after all, even though The Force Awakens was dinged for being too formulaic.

So whatever Episode IX is called -- the movie itself means a hell of a lot more than what its called. It'll need to bring closure to not just this trilogy but really the two that proceeded it.

Can there be a more satisfying conclusion to it? That's what I am looking forward to seeing, but I could really care less what its called.

Oscar-a-palooza 6: Who is the best director of them all?

This is the fourth installment of an annual series of Oscar predictions/opinion posts featuring yours truly and the legendary Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. Check out our takes on this year's  supporting actor and actress races here and here. 

And our picks in the best actor and best actress races can be found here and here. Stay tuned for our takes on the other major categories for the always polarizing Academy Awards.

Brian: We're in the home stretch with only two categories to go. Up next, we have Best Director, which is a category that's in a bit of an odd predicament. They've expanded the Best Picture nominees to 10, but have kept the directors at 5 nominees. This has lead to its fair share of snubs and surprises in recent years (most notably Ben Affleck missing a nomination for eventual Best Picture Argo).

I've also noticed a trend in split Best Picture/Director winners. Whereas these two categories used to go hand in hand, we've seen a split in recent years. After a discussion with my co-worker, I've changed my mind on this as well. I used to lump the Best Picture and Director together because I felt that a Best Picture had to be the best directed film.

However, my coworker is a much more visual person and he likens directing to being able to tell a story without a script. He places shot selection and imagery as a more important part of directing than the plot. Honestly, I can see it both ways. If you look at The Revenant, that was a beautifully directed movie, but not necessarily the best movie of the year. Same with Gravity, The Life of Pi, etc.

I could see a split scenario occurring this year, especially if Black Panther uses its SAG momentum to catapult it to a Best Picture win. The only directing nod that I could see ending up with Best Picture is Roma, so this is a very interesting category... with a few glaring snubs.

Here are the nominees:

Alfonso Cuaron (Roma) 
Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite) 
Spike Lee (BlacKkKlansman) 
Adam McKay (Vice) 
Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War)

Who Will Win: I'm torn on this. I think that Alfonso Cuaron will win for his epic-in-scale, yet personal in story film, Roma. However, he's already won for Gravity, and I don't see Roma with a ton of momentum going in to these Oscars. It could be the film that ends up cleaning up in the "lesser" categories, but fails to notch any of the big awards. I think that Spike Lee might just pull this one off for his long overdue nomination for BlacKkKlansman. Is it his best film? No. However, I would liken this to Scorsese finally winning for The Departed. Maybe it's just the time for Spike Lee.

Who Should Win: Again, it's between Cuaron and Lee for me. I wouldn't be disappointed if either won. Same with Yorgos Lanthimos for The Favourite.

Snubs/Surprises: My two biggest snubs are Ryan Coogler for Black Panther and Alex Garland for Annihilation. Coogler basically turns everything he touches in to gold and I'm really upset he was left out here. Would he have been included if they had expanded the directing field? Probably.

That Adam McKay nomination really chaps my ass because there were much more deserving people left out. Alex Garland may be the most underrated director working today. He's Denis Villeneuve without the critical acclaim. Yeah, he makes "weird" sci-fi movies, something the Academy has never really warmed up to, but he's a hell of a director and someone I hope people come around to more as his career progresses.

Who takes home your top directing award?

Adam: I thought this was perhaps the most underwhelming category besides Best Actor. I guess the biggest surprise was Pawel Pawilkowski for Cold War, which I haven't seen, but is supposed to be terrific. The lack of female nominees is glaring as is the lack of recognition for directors whose films have made it into the Best Picture race. I agree there are a lot of glaring snubs, although of course as a longtime Spike Lee fan, it is nice to see him finally recognized after all these years.

I am not someone who gets hung up on whether someone wins for the best movie or best performance. I love The Departed, so I'm fine with Scorsese winning for that and I thought BlacKkKlansman was a great comeback movie for Lee, even though he should have been nominated and won for Do the Right Thing 30 years ago.

Who will win: Alfonso Cuaron. That being said I think with some major would-be contenders like Bradley Cooper on the sidelines, I think Cuaron has this locked up. He seems to be cleaning up in the precursor awards, and his semi-autobiographical film is very much his personal vision. He has already won once -- deservedly -- for Gravity, and this epic film further demonstrates his skill and range. I always like to see the wealth spread around at the Oscars (I was bummed when Inarritu won two years in a row), but I think few will quibble with this result.

Who should win: This is tough one for me too. I have immense respect for Cuaron and I'd love to see Spike Lee win, but my favorite film represented in this category is ironically The Favourite, so I'm gonna go with Yorgos Lanthimos, a filmmaker I have not totally embraced until now. His bleak, darkly comic style grated on me in the past but I thought this film got the balance of darkness and light just right and I think his film is the best directed of this bunch.

Snubs/Surprises: For me its gotta be Ryan Coogler. Black Panther would have been just another superhero movie without him and he imbued that movie with so much style and sophistication, it's just a travesty that he was never a real contender here. I actually think Bradley Cooper deserved to get in for A Star Is Born, a wonderful and moving re-interpretation of a classic showbiz tale.

I haven't been singing First Man's praises as much as I've meant to but for me Damian Chazelle demonstrated with that movie that he is too good to ignore. Lynne Ramsey did excellent work on You Were Never Really Here. The Coens did more effortlessly great work with The Ballad of Buster Scuggs. But, I'm just glad Peter Farrelly and Bryan Singer didn't get in for fairly obvious reasons.

'Police Story' movies remind me of Jackie Chan's cinematic magic

Last night I had the pleasure and privilege of watching two of Jackie Chan's best loved vehicles -- Police Story and Police Story 2 -- at the Alamo Drafthouse here in Brooklyn. It's remarkable how well these two films from over 30 years ago held up.

They reminded me of why Chan is one of cinema's great treasures, even if he's faded from the American movie scene in recent years. Ironically, before the first film a trailer for the upcoming John Wick sequel played -- not only does it look great -- but it also is a clear descendant of Chan's best work.

No one did action quite like him -- not just doing all of his own stunts, but using his whole body to both comic and kinetic effect at all times. Chan was not a muscle bound guy like Stallone or Schwarzenegger, in fact, he's pretty petite. Essentially he's a combination of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton who happens to be able to fight kung fu style very well.

Like a lot of Americans, for me Chan came out of nowhere in the mid-to-late 90s, when he first broke through as a mainstream performer with Rumble in the Bronx. Clearly, the Rush Hour films propelled him to the stratosphere, and folks like me started to delve into this earlier, more influential work.

The Police Story movies were always my favorite. While I appreciated the fight scenes -- that were both thrilling and funny -- in his Drunken Master movies, I felt like Chan was more entertaining and compelling in films set in a contemporary environment.

In both movies he plays a somewhat stock character -- the earnest cop who's effective but also accident prone and a pain his superior's ass -- but he plays the part with so much conviction and energy that the clunkier parts of the narrative (and the patronizing treatment of its female characters) is largely forgivable.

What's remarkable about both movies is that somehow Chan managed to also direct them both (and in the case of the first movie, sing the theme song!). The infamous end credits show Chan meticulously rehearsing each trademark death-defying stunt (the closet corollary is Tom Cruise in the Mission: Impossible movies) and then sometimes trying and failing to pull them off.

Chan shed real blood on these films, as did many of his incredibly trusting co-stars and collaborators, and he does it all with the giddy delight of someone who must deeply love what he does.

He's made dozens and dozens of films like that before and after, not always at the same high level of production values and story structure -- but he still took the same giants risks with his own safety for the audiences' enjoyment.

For this, and so much more, Chan never get enough credit. Not only is he a stealthily good actor, but the physicality of his performance alone merits more appreciation. Performers like Chan almost never have a prayer of getting awards attention -- but I wish there was someone way to give him the Cecil B. DeMille award at the Golden Globes or some kind of honorary Oscar.

Because he's stepped back from making high octane action films here in the states, I fear his indelible mark on the genre has been forgotten. Hopefully the resurrection and restoration of two of his best films will help put him back in the spotlight where he belongs.

Oscar-a-palooza part 6: Who's the best actress?

This is the fourth installment of a series of 2018-2019 Oscar predictions/opinion posts alongside Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. Check out our takes on this year's  supporting actor and actress races here and here. And our picks in the best actor race can be found here.

Stay tuned for our takes on the other major categories for the always polarizing Academy Awards.

Brian: I'm sticking with my Malek front runner prediction... especially after he took home the SAG award last night. I think the Singer accusations, while horrible, are too late to derail his momentum. 

We'll see.

Speaking of front runners... we're on to the next category... Best Actress. I think this category is practically a one person race, which I'll get to in my predictions. I also think that the academy generally got it right with this category. A case could be made for Emily Blunt's joyous portrayal of Mary Poppins, but was she that much better than the other women nominated? I'm not so sure. I'm really glad that Yalitza Aparicio got the nod for her quiet yet brilliant performance in Roma. Before the pre-Oscar run-up, I thought Lady Gaga was a shoo-in to win this one.

However, it looks like this one's a lock for Glenn Close. Speaking of pre-Oscar run-up, these award shows steal all the fun and surprise from the Oscars. We basically know who is going to win ahead of time. I think it's a large reason why people are turning away from watching the Oscars. I know I'm less interested in watching the ceremony than I was even a couple years ago. Perhaps the Oscars should look into moving the ceremony ahead of the SAG, PGA, Golden Globes, etc.?

Here are the nominees:

Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) 
Glenn Close (The Wife) 
Olivia Colman (The Favourite) 
Lady Gaga (A Star Is Born) 
Melissa McCarthy (Can You Ever Forgive Me?)

Who Will Win: Glenn Close. This category feels like a coronation for Close. She's cleaning up so far and I see no reason that the Oscars will be any different. It would be a nice topper to a brilliant career.  

Who Should Win: I haven't seen The Wife yet, so by all accounts Glenn Close deserves all the accolades coming her way. However, I was absolutely blown away by Yalitza Aparicio in Roma. She deserves it for the birthing scene (and I don't want to spoil it for anyone) alone, which was one of the most emotionally intense scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time. Lady Gaga also gave a great performance in A Star Is Born, but I feel like Bradley Cooper had the meatier role. Gaga tied with Close at the PGA awards, so there's a chance she could win the Oscar.

Snubs/Surprises: I know the Academy generally stays away from "weird" sci-fi, but Annihilation was my favorite movie of the year and I'm upset at the lack of Oscar love it received. I know her role wasn't as showy as some of her other previously nominated roles (Black Swan and Jackie), but I loved Natalie Portman in Annihilation and would have liked to have seen her name included.

 Are we in agreement with this one?

Adam: This was a very solid group to be sure. I guess the only surprise was that Yalitza Aparicio got in -- and that wasn't too huge a surprise, since she is the heart and soul of Roma. I do think this is -- probably -- the one forgone conclusion of the night in a year that is weirdly unpredictable. For instance, does last night's SAG win for Best Cast now make Black Panther the front-runner now? I don't know.

The precursor thing can be weird to be sure, and I guess SAG is a better indicator than most. For me, I don't usually watch the Oscars in suspense. I just like moving acceptance speeches -- they always get me and I think the winner of this category will deliver a doozy.

I do know that you're right that Glenn Close has emerged as the clear front-runner. Lady Gaga was really remarkable in A Star Is Born, a part -- forgive me -- she was 'born' to play. I think she'll probably have to prove herself again like Cher did in Moonstruck after her initial nomination for Silkwood before the academy fully embraces her. I also think her consolation prize will be the Best Song category -- and she will be well on her way to I'm sure will be an inevitable EGOT. Everyone else, though terrific, will have to wait their turn.

Aparcio is a great discovery and will hopefully get more opportunities. Melissa McCarthy was very good in a movie I had some quibbles with and in a role that was hard to make even a little sympathetic. I haven't seen The Wife, but I've always been a Close fan, so I'm intrigued. But I am all about Olivia Coleman this year. More on that in a sec.

Who will win: Glenn Close, The Wife. Close has clearly been gunning for the Oscar for decades now. Her last attempt with 2012's Albert Nobbs came up short but this year feels different. She's been so great for so long -- that Golden Globes speech just sealed it. And I'm happy for her. She's so terrific in roles as wildly different as Fatal Attraction and The Natural. Looks like seventh time is the charm.

Who should win: Olivia Coleman, The Favourite. I don't know about 'should' -- all of these people are worthy (unlike Best Actor) -- I just have to go with the performance I enjoyed the most and that would be Coleman's tour-de-force work in The Favourite. She's alternately funny, pathetic, sad, tragic, manipulative and doomed. It's a really amazing piece of work and I hope she continues to get juicy parts like this.

Snubs/Surprises - This is a pretty stacked category but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have been thrilled if Toni Collette had made it in for Hereditary or if Viola Davis got in for Widows. For a while, it looked like Emily Blunt would be nominated for her luminous movie star performance in Mary Poppins Returns. But yeah, this is a hard group to find fault with. At least Meryl Streep isn't in there for the 100th time (and don't get me wrong, I love her).