'Toy Story 4' is another tearjerker from the geniuses at Pixar

I was really skeptical going into Toy Story 4. The previously entry in this nearly 25 year old franchise was not only my favorite, but it felt like the perfect finale for this heartwarming series about a collection of toys that come to life when they young owner is away.

And for stretches of Toy Story 4, which is laugh out loud funny, I still questioned if this film needed to exist for any reason other than to make money.

But then the last act sticks the landing so hard with so many rich emotional content, that I found myself balling over these neurotic animated characters all over again.

It's some kind of remarkable magic trick that the Pixar team pulls off -- getting us to care about Woody, Buzz, Bo and the rest as if they were a part of our family. Granted for some viewers they have literally grown up with these characters and if this is truly the last installment, they too will have a huge lump in their throat by the end of this one.

So much care and creativity went into every ounce of this film, and even when a few story beats feel redundant with previous entries (yes, Woody yet again gets separated from the others), the artistry on display here is mind-blowing.

This may be one of the best looking animated films I've ever seen. It's also just as dark as Toy Story 3 occasionally got, even a little scary in some sequences that make wonderful nods to The Shining.

There are welcome vocal additions here, especially Tony Hale as a hilarious new character called Forky, and Key Peele as a couple of wisecracking carnival prize stuffed animals.

Like all of these films, they can be totally enjoyed as a straight ahead kids film and as a very adult meditation on letting go and acceptance.

Most of the best Pixar films have this perfect mixture of the sour and the sweet, but there is something special about the Toy Story films. It might be because these were the films that started it all. It also may be because the voice acting of Tom Hanks in particular is a step above everyone else.

Whatever the secret is, I have to tip my cap to this franchise. Just like the Marvel movies, you can't discount and dismiss them as pure commercial fodder. A lot of thought and care went into making this as moving and memorable as it is.

Is the great summer blockbuster movie dead?

Last night, before a screening I hosted of the Jean Claude Van-Damme/Dennis Rodman 1997 debacle Double Team, there was a trailer for the absurdly bombastic upcoming action film Hobbs and Shaw.

It's a bit of a victory lap for The Rock and Jason Statham, who have emerged as perhaps the most likable performers in the Fast & Furious franchise and have the star power to really sell a spin-off like this.

Sure, the trailer gives away way too much -- but boy does this movie look fun in a check your brain at the entrance kind of way. And it has a killer last shot in which The Rock appears to be swinging a helicopter with his bare hands. Those kinds of moments are crucial to selling movies like these.

There was something about watching this trailer that reminded me of when I was a kid and summer movie season was the most exciting time of the year. Yes, there were always the family films, which eventually became the tentpole Pixar movies, but there were also high concept action spectacles with big stars and bravura sequences.

But, for the last few years, there haven't been many traditional summer movies for me to get excited about. Part of this is me just getting older. Maybe I'm no longer the target audience for a movie like Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I know I'm not for Detective Pikachu, but with the biggest movies of the year opening earlier and earlier these days, the drought of good until we reach the awards season deep into the winter feels longer than ever.

Yes, superhero movies still deliver this time of year. The early buzz on Spider-Man: Far From Home is good, and that does feel like an old school summer blockbuster. Last year it was Mission: Impossible - Fallout filled that void for me. But this year, movies like Men In Black: International, Dark Phoenix and at least critically if not commercially, Aladdin, have all been duds.

The movie most deserving of a summer movie reception, Booksmart, was a massive bomb at the box office, for reasons I still can't fully understand.

It may be sequel fatigue, especially when they're ones that no one domestically was clamoring for. But that fact is that with a couple of exceptions (like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk and Inception) almost every summer of the last 10 years has been dominated by sequels or films based on established source material, usually comic books or animated titles.

There are two non-traditional summer films that I am as excited about at the blockbusters that I used to rush out to as a kid: Midsommar, director Ari Aster's follow-up to Hereditary and Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Midsommar, is already divisive with critics, and may be (like Hereditary) too heady to win over a mainstream audience, but Tarantino's ninth film is another story. It's got huge stars, an intriguing Charles Manson adjacent hook and the Tarantino brand, which still gets audiences out most of the time.

There have been a few buzzy, zeitgeisty movies this year -- I would argue that Us and John Wick 3 qualify. Endgame does too I suppose, although it almost felt like something you had to see to be a completist, even though it was better than it needed to be.

Midsommar and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood could be the popular, widely discussed and debated, kind of breakout summer movie that I've always loved. My fingers are crossed.

'Always Be My Maybe' is overshadowed by the Keanu-ssance

Always Be My Maybe, the recent Netflix film starring Randall Park and Ali Wong is a pretty conventional romantic comedy in a lot of ways. It's a tried and true formula -- boy and girl go from being childhood friends to lovers to friends to lovers again. In fact, the story could work with a couple of any race.

But this is a mainstream rom com starring to two Asian people, and so therefore it is a rarity and an advance. And the fact that the narrative is not an exceptional one or an elevated fairy tale (like Crazy Rich Asians) is something of a stealth triumph as well.

There is subtle diversity throughout the film, even a trans character pops up if its no big thing. The entire affair lowkey and perfectly suited for viewing at home.

And even if it's tonally a little jarring -- the more serious moments don't always play as well as the broader comedic ones -- it's a charming little trifle, which also will for better or worse also contribute to the Keanu-ssance we're currently living in.

I have mixed feelings about the Keanu Reeves extended cameo in this film as a wacko version of himself who is dating Wong's character. Reeves is riveting, totally reveling in the parody of his public persona but also showing new shades as a comic actor I haven't seen from him before. The trouble is his sudden appearance suddenly spins what was a fairly grounded romance into a more surreal territory.

And then he disappears from the narrative abruptly and unrealistically -- I like when the film had Reeves' suddenly dropping hints of being an egomaniac, but his eventual eruption would have spoiled the fun of a more high concept comedy: what if your dream girl met and started dating Keanu Reeves.

So when Reeves leaves (see what I did there?) you feel his absence and the more unpredictable movie he suggested is now gone too, and we settle into the familiar territory of the 'lead character must change fundamental personality character trait unrealistically in order to show they are willing to sacrifice for love' stuff.

I feel, more realistically, people don't change much and their success of failure in love has more to do with find a person who can tolerate or even love your flaws vs. someone fixated on them. This is one of those movies where both leads are endlessly charming but who I never really bought as a couple with chemistry.

It actually would make sense if Wong's character, established as an extremely career driven celebrity, would be far better suited for a relationship with Reeves. And as cute as it often is, the movie just don't work hard enough to sell us on some of its plotting.

And yet I am thrilled it exists, that despite the loud chorus of haters, concerted efforts to finally start having more representation are still ongoing and going strong. I know there is a lot of bile out there about projects like these being p.c. culture run amok.

But those folks have never had to suffer through the indignity of seeing their culture be virtually invisible in one the most if not the most influential media on the planet,

'Paris Is Burning' is a perfect documentary for this time or any

I don't remember how and when I first discovered the landmark documentary Paris Is Burning, but once I saw it, I knew I was beholding something I could never forget. I just got to see it again at Film Forum, a restoration on the big screen, and I am even more blown away by it.

It's funny, smart, informative, moving and ultimately life affirming -- it gives you everything you could possibly want and more: unforgettable costumes, classic lines and glorious atmosphere.

I'm not quite sure how director Jennie Livingston earned the trust of her subjects, who are mostly young LGBTQ people in turbulent 1980s New York, but she works miracles by keeping the voices of any outsiders completely out of this film.

For the uninitiated, the film explores the complex and colorful culture of 'balls' -- something akin to a fashion competition but also a celebration of a marginalized community that nevertheless is strong, loving, fierce and so profoundly funny.

It's one of the most immersive documentaries I've ever seen, aided tremendously by its toe tapping disco-infused soundtrack but also the rhythm of the interviewees voices as they break down 'mopping,' 'shade', 'reading' and 'realness,' among other insider terms (only later to be co-opted by the mainstream).

There is also a sadness that intrudes on the fun -- many of the protagonists would succumb to the AIDS in the years that followed, and the film doesn't shy away from describing the potential dark side of living as a trans woman then and now.

Naturally, this film had a major impact upon its release -- its simply too indelible to ignore -- but its legend has only grown since and in the wake of the Trump administration's ongoing war to curtail trans rights, it's more important than it's ever been.

People, especially young people, need to see this film. I'm heartened to hear that it's used as an education tool, because it is such honest but accessible way to expose people to a very celebrated facet of gay culture, without demeaning anyone or trivializing them.

What comes across on screen is the warmth, love and humanity of these beautiful people, and when the movie ended I didn't want to say goodbye. I just hope someday the atmosphere of the ballroom can enter every space in America. We all need to better and the excellence on display here is an inspiration.

'When They See Us' starts necessary conversation about tragic case

The success of and national conversation started by the Central Park Five drama When They See Us proves once again that director Ava DuVernay does wonders with material like this.

Her breakthrough film Selma happened coincide with a bitter fight over degrading elements of the Voting Rights Act.

Her blistering documentary 13th, not only shed light on the tragically flawed prison industrial complex, but it also forced Hillary Clinton to confront her uncomfortable past, stumping for the infamous crime bill of the '90s while using terms like "super-predators."

Her new, ambitious miniseries, is a very vivid retelling of the horrifying true story of the Central Park Five. And perhaps ironically, because one of the falsely accused five's loudest enemies -- Donald Trump -- is now president of the United States (1?) and he also still stubbornly insisting that they simply must be guilty of a crime that someone else confessed to and which DNA evidence cleared them of participating in -- their story has a newfound relevance.

I was too young to be caught up in the Central Park Five drama when it first happened 30 years ago, but I do remember that period being very violent and racially fraught in New York City. I grew up in New Jersey but I got a steady diet of scary headlines pumped into my veins from the local NewYork affiliate on a daily basis.

Years later I ravenously consumed Ken Burns' heartbreaking documentary about the five boys who lost their childhood because overzealous prosecutors and heartless cops, most of whom never admitted fault in their case.

The companion book, penned by Burns' daughter Sarah, is an even more harrowing experience, if nothing else because if goes into gruesome detail about the crimes the real assailant of the Central Park Jogger did and continued to do while these five innocent black and brown youths endured untold horrors behind bars.

After A Wrinkle in Time landed with a thud -- I can't remember a more reviled recent film that still somehow managed to eek out a $100 million gross -- I think a lot of folks started to second-guess DuVernay's talent. That disappoint came on the heels of her walking off Black Panther, only to see Ryan Coogler take the superhero genre film to new heights, scoring an unprecedented nod for Best Picture.

But here her virtuoso skills are back on display in full force. She knows how to tell very moving intimate stories on a very large canvas. You never lose the sense that this was a crime that captivated the city if not a nation, while at the same time you come to care about each individual boys lives and are deeply effected by their fates.

It is no small feat to pull off storytelling on this scale and across four episode there is no important element that goes overlooked -- from the brutality of the attack on the victim to the purely unlucky reason one of the boys, Korey Wise, was even ensnared in the case in the first place.

I was so thrilled to hear the news that the series has been topping Netflix's 'ratings', such as they are, since its debut. And it forced the president stick by his racist position on the case, as he is want to do.

Of course, his words can do nothing to diminish the bravery and strength of the five young men profiled here or take away from the power of DuVernay's filmmaking.

This is stirring, must-see work.

Why Michael Mann is the man: An appreciation

Last night, inspired by the great movie-themed podcast Blank Check with Griffin and David I indulged in a double header of two of director Michael Mann's most successful films -- The Last of the Mohicans and Heat.

In some ways, the films couldn't be more different -- one is a romance set against the backdrop of tensions between native Americans and British interlopers and the other is perhaps the most epic cops and robbers movie ever made.

And yet they do share a DNA -- they are sensitive, yet brutally violent action films with conflicted, but highly masculine men at their center.

It's something unique that Mann brings to the table. It's not that all of his films are successful -- I thought Blackhat was an impenetrable mess and Ali falls short of being the biopic that greatest boxer of all time deserved (even though Will Smith does as admirable a job as probably anyone could ever do of mimicking the real thing).

He generally takes big, usually macho male movie stars like Pacino, De Niro, Cruise, Depp, Crowe, etc., and lets them both be badass and undeniably vulnerable at the same time. This is not an easy feat to pull off and most modern filmmakers don't even bother.

Hobbs and Shaw will be entertaining to be sure, but I think it's safe to assume that The Rock and Jason Statham won't be emoting much or betraying any sense of insecurity. Part of the reason I am so sad to see Robert Downey Jr. exit the Marvel universe is because his Tony Stark/Iron Man had the most human evolution and inherently imperfect humanity.

Sure, Doctor Strange was cocky -- but Stark was damn near a war criminal until he got his head straight.

Similarly the men in Heat in particular are not going to win any awards for gender and cultural sensitivity. They are brutes and often single-minded ones at that.

And yet, there are repeatedly brought down to earth, sometimes by violent incidents beyond their control and sometimes, as in the end of Heat, by their own unhealthy code of honor.

My favorite Mann film is still hist first one -- the ice cold tour de force for James Caan, 1981's Thief. This is a film that culminates with its hero abandoning his wife and child and going on a one-man mission to execute all of his enemies, and if you know this film -- you're still rooting for him when he does it. Caan's character has a code and he can't deviate from it. You wind up respecting his logic, confidence and precision, even if his life choices are tragically bad.

The same can be said for the heroes of Heat -- in Mohicans, which is lovely to look at it, Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty heroic without caveats, a rarity for Mann. Pacino and De Niro are by any measure damaged men, incapable of maintaining normal relationships because of their obsessive dedication to professions that could very well kill them.

Neither man seems entirely self aware. They know that they are not cutting as husbands/boyfriends, but they also don't seem to know how to course correct. That tension creates a empathy for the characters and prevents them from becoming two-dimensional He-Men.

Unfortunately for Mann, the kind of movie he is best at making -- grown-up action films for adults -- has rapidly gone out of style, and his penchant for going over schedule and over budget is no bueno in any era. Still, his nearly a dozen films are an impressive testament to his skills and authenticity. 

Lovely, sad 'Last Black Man in San Francisco' is one of a kind

I've only visited San Francisco a couple of times, but I found both experiences transporting -- it really is such a distinct American city -- not just because of its unique hilly landscape or bohemian reputation or phenomenal food or even its complex cultural melange.

There is something else more ethereal that is hard to put into words, but which the new film -- The Last Black Man in San Francisco -- captures beautifully.

But part of what makes this very striking movie more profound is the fact that its grappling with a phenomenon that is plaguing several major American cities, including my own: the seeming inevitability of gentrification and the mixture of defiance and hopelessness it inspires.

This film operates at its own oddball pace with lots of humor, ambiguousness and gut wrenching drama. It's a very ambitious film and I suspect it will be a challenging one for some, especially since it's somewhat passive heroes are somewhat hard to penetrate (at first) and the narrative follows no conventional path.

It's easy to project other directors' influences on this film -- Terrence Malik, Barry Jenkins, Jim Jarmusch -- but as the movie unfolded, I found myself deducing that director Joe Talbot (who I was shocked to learn is a white man, since his film is so nuanced and sensitive around issues of race) was simply in a class by himself. He is a filmmaker to watch to be sure.

His film is not simply a screed against gentrification, but what it does is put poignant faces and families who bear the brunt of it front and center and it doesn't flinch away from portraying how painful being displaced in your own hometown can be.

At one key moment -- the nominal lead of the film -- Jimmie Fails (which is also the real life name of the actor who plays him) tells some snooty interlopers that you aren't allowed to hate a city unless you love it first.

And that's a sentiment that anyone living in a big city can wholeheartedly understand and cling to.

There's a feeling of things slipping away throughout the film -- but it's not a depressing slog. It's frequently surprising and often very funny, even if the humor isn't as accessible as it was in a similarly anti-establishment film like Sorry to Bother You.

I have no idea if a film like this will find an audience or could, but what it will be no matter how its received is a indelible snapshot of a city on the verge of completely whitewashing its past and its flawed to be sure but still very special characters.

Talbot, a fifth generation, resident of the city -- clearly knows how to capture the city's beauty and rough edges. The movie is gorgeously composed and set to an immersive score that can be intoxicating at times.

Hopefully, it's a movie that can hang around and be remembered around awards season, It was clearly crafted with a lot of love and passion and I can see it inspiring those kinds of feelings in others.

How I learned to get on board with gore in the movies

Like a lot of horror movie fans I used to always draw the line at 'gore.' "Oh, I like horror movies, just not the super gory ones," is a popular refrain with a lot of people and it definitely was with me. But I'm not entirely sure where that came from. Even though I love the genre I didn't consume much as a child.

I think, in retrospect, I really meant scenes of torture, which if not handled with any artistic or narrative merit, can simply feel exploitative and gross.

And a couple of movies I've watched and appreciated recently -- Maniac (1980) and The Prowler (1981) are both undeniably gross and exploitative, and yet they both have enough style and unforgettable images, that I can imagine would disgust the overwhelming majority of viewers.

But for me, their gloriously over-the-top set pieces of kills that will provoke an audible reaction no matter who you are. I would stop short of saying these movies are 'beautiful' but they are strange, truly creepy and wonderfully provocative films.

Sure, narratively there isn't much there. And the films linger a little too long on naked female bodies being mutilated. But the DIY, pre-CGI special effects by the legendary Tom Savini (he also was behind the groundbreaking nastiness in Dawn of the Dead) are undeniably visceral and shocking.

It's not a surprise that Savini is such a hero to Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, who are junkies for these films' grindhouse/low rent drive-in aesthetic.

For me the bridge to these films was built on my admiration for Italian director Dario Argento's films. His masterworks -- films like Deep Red, Suspiria and s -- all make gorgeous gore palatable without in anyway diminishing the horror genre elements which are the bones on which these usually incoherent (from a plot perspective) movies are built.

The deaths here are still fairly quick and the movies themselves are so surreal and impressionistic even that I tend not to be too disturbed by them. I don't come to these movies to see gruesomeness, but when it happens it can be entertaining, and while admitting that may be a little embarrassing, I have hunch that I am not the only one who feels that way.

Horror has been and maybe always will ghettoized because I think a lot of us feel ashamed to enjoy something that revolves around death -- and not just the inevitably of it -- but the specific, unpleasant details.

Some people are wired in such a way where they just can't get a thrill out of this, let alone any joy. I don't know why I am wired differently, and I hope it doesn't say anything bad about me as a human being -- but I do get a strange kick out of this unique kind of madness.

1982 Oscars: Who should have won in the major categories Part III

It's been a slow period for movies -- odd for the summer season.

Ma was not the low key great movie I was hoping it was going to be (according to critics) and I couldn't be less interested in the latest Godzilla reboot.

I'll probably go see The Dead Don't Die, even though the reviews have been mediocre. In fact the only must-see movie coming out in the next few weeks (as far as I'm concerned) is Midsommar.

So in the meantime, I will continue to play make believe with Oscar ceremonies past because nothing seems to matter anymore and the president has said that the moon is a part of Mars and it's just another story.

I've already discussed the lead actors and supporting actors who won and were nominated for 1982 films. Now let's look at the final two major categories.

Best Director 

Winner 
Richard Attenborough – Gandhi 

Other nominees 
Wolfgang Petersen – Das Boot
Steven Spielberg – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Sydney Pollack – Tootsie 
Sidney Lumet – The Verdict 

Attenborough winning for his epic Gandhi isn't a surprise, although many would argue that the strength of that movie lies in the Kingsley performance. Still, it's impressive feat of a movie to pull off -- it's never boring. The Wolfgang Peterson nomination is a cool one even though his influential submarine thriller Das Boot never reached a wide American audience. It's insane that Lumet never won the Oscar, this film is as worthy as many of his others, although I wish he'd won for Network, which might be his strongest film of this era. The other Sydney, Sydney Pollack shows off his remarkable versatility with the blockbuster comedy Tootsie (he'd win three years later for the problematic romantic drama Out of Africa). Still, my winner for this year would be...

My winner:
Steven Spielberg – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

E.T. wasn't expected to be the phenomenon it was. It's a really personal movie for Spielberg and it shows. He handles the domestic tension of young Elliot (a remarkable Henry Thomas) and his fractured family very delicately and the relationship that grows between the boy is truly magical. Sure, some people may find this movie a tad to sentimental and manipulative but not me. About two years ago I watched this movie with two of my nieces and it not only holds up but it transports you all over again. It's a really special achievement for the most famous filmmaker of all time.


Best Picture 

Winner 
Gandhi – Richard Attenborough, producer

Other nominees
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial – Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, producers
Missing – Edward Lewis and Mildred Lewis, producers
Tootsie – Sydney Pollack and Dick Richards, producers
The Verdict – David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck, producers

These are all strong, worthy movies -- although with 20/20 hindsight a movie like Blade Runner would and should be there and a threat to win. But alas that film was far to unconventional and tepidly received to ever have a shot at this. I am also a bit of a completionist when it comes to Director and Picture. I hate when they split and think it makes no particular sense when they don't. Steve McQueen should have won for 12 Years a Slave, Barry Jenkins should have won for Moonlight, etc etc. I just think ET is the most remarkable and game-changing of these nominees and one of the major movies of the decade -- it remains the highest grosser of the 80s, period.

1982 Oscars: Who should have won in the major categories Part II

This is the second part of a completely unnecessary but hopefully not uninteresting exercise in could shoulda woulda when it comes the Academy Awards of yesteryear.

We all know by now that they almost always get it wrong, oftentimes not even nominating the best films or performances in any given year.

Like OMG Malcolm McDowell was not nominated for his career defining performance as Alex, the lead of A Clockwork Orange or filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick and Robert Altman never winning one (not counting honorary). So here I am looking at the year 1982  -- the year I was born, and as I've written before, a pretty strong year for movies.

In my last post I weighed in on the two major supporting actor categories and decided that if it had been up to me I would have awarded James Mason and Teri Garr, rather than Louis Gossett, Jr. and Jessica Lange, although they are terrific in the films they both won for.

But what about Best Actor and Best actress ...

BEST ACTOR

Winner
Ben Kingsley – Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi

Other nominees
Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels
Jack Lemmon – Missing as Edmund Horman
Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin
Peter O'Toole – My Favorite Year as Alan Swann

It's easy to see why Kingsley won this award. It's the part that made him a star, he really becomes Gandhi in the film and it's one of those prestige types of performances that are impossible to ignore -- think Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln. But I would have given it to Kingsley nearly twenty years later for his ferocious turn in Sexy Beast. Poor Peter O'Toole never won his Oscar and while he's delightful in My Favorite Year, he should have won twenty years earlier for Lawrence of Arabia, one of the great lead performances ever. Then there's Jack Lemmon and Dustin Hoffman, both wonderful as always, but also both already winners in this category. For me, the strongest performance, the most awards worthy and let's face it overdo was...

My winner
Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin

Astonishingly Newman had not won an Oscar yet by 1982 (the academy would finally right that wrong four years later, awarding him for The Color of Money). This, however, might be the best of an astonishing run of later year performances from Newman who had matured from pretty boy matinee idol to a compelling, complicated leading man. His work here is reminiscent of George Clooney's in Michael Clayton -- he is a tortured loser in search of his soul and he gets (in his mind) one last shot at redemption through a medical malpractice case. Newman kills it in close-ups, in monologues, with his physicality. This is quite possibly the performance of his career and he should have won for it.

BEST ACTRESS

Winner
Meryl Streep – Sophie's Choice as Zofia "Sophie" Zawistowski

Other nominees
Julie Andrews – Victor/Victoria as Victoria Grant/Count Victor Grazinski
Jessica Lange – Frances as Frances Farmer
Sissy Spacek – Missing as Beth Horman
Debra Winger – An Officer and a Gentleman as Paula Pokrifki

It's hard to deny the power of Meryl Streep's work in Sophie's Choice, it kind of overpowers everyone else here -- and don't get me wrong -- this is a murderer's row of nominees. If memory serves, Lange (who scored the rare double nomination in a single year) is a real powerhouse in Frances as is Spacek in Missing. Julie Andrews' has the lightest role, but she's Julie fricken' Andrews. And Debra Winger does the best acting in virtually every big blockbuster she was ever in. But...

My winner
Meryl Streep – Sophie's Choice as Zofia "Sophie" Zawistowski

I gotta give it to Meryl -- this is not just her best performance -- there's an argument to be made that is the best female performance ever. it's not just the impeccable accents she does -- even though that is impressive -- it's just the whole emotional devastation of her character's arc is unparalleled. Even if you've never seen it -- you've heard of it -- the Sophie's choice moment, where she must choose which one of her children will live and which one will die. It should be an impossible scene to play, but she somehow does it credibly and convincingly. So this one they got right.

1982 Oscars: Who should have won in the major categories

I'm writing this post around my birthday and my completely meaningless, self indulgent gift to myself is this blog kicking off a new series I want to do on Oscar ceremonies from random years in the relatively recent past.

I'll take a look at the major categories andI'll talk about who won and who I think should have won.

I'm starting with the year of my birth -- 1982 -- and I'm sticking to only the films and performances that were actually nominated. So while I believe Blade Runner, The Thing and Ricardo Montalban's performance in Wrath of Khan should all be in this mix, they weren't when the awards were handed out in '83 so they can't be now.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Winner
Louis Gossett Jr. – An Officer and a Gentleman as Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley

Other nominees...
Charles Durning – The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas as The Governor
John Lithgow – The World According to Garp as Roberta Muldoon
James Mason – The Verdict as Ed Concannon
Robert Preston – Victor/Victoria as Carol "Toddy" Todd

This is a tough one. I've seen all of these and they're pretty much all worthy, although I am a little puzzled by Durning's nod here. He's wonderful and fun in the movie, but the performance essentially consists of one spirited little number. This is a little like Queen Latifah getting nominated for Chicago. Sometimes one good song is enough. Lithgow should get have an Oscar by now (2019) for something and this early empathetic performance as a trans woman in Garp is terrific, as is Louis Gossett Jr.'s committed turn in the winning performance as tough as nails drill sergeant. I like Robert Preston in his film more than the movie itself. But my winner...

My winner
James Mason – The Verdict as Ed Concannon

One of my favorite character actors of all time -- this would be the third and final nomination for this great, often underrated performer. He probably would have won in 1954 for his version of Bradley Cooper in A Star Is Born if Marlon Brando hadn't delivered his tour de force in On the Waterfront in the same year.

He is a devilish delight in The Verdict, where he is essentially the villain but he plays him with such a witty, coy intelligence that it's impossible not to be charmed by him and when he is knocked off his game by the underdog Paul Newman it's wildly satisfying.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Winner

Jessica Lange – Tootsie as Julie Nichols

Other nominees
Glenn Close – The World According to Garp as Jenny Fields
Teri Garr – Tootsie as Sandra "Sandy" Lester
Kim Stanley – Frances as Lillian Van Ornum Farmer
Lesley Ann Warren – Victor/Victoria as Norma Cassidy

I've only seen Frances once and I'm sorry say I can't remember it well or the Stanley performance so there's a caveat there. Glenn Close is terrific as always as Garp's iconoclastic mother. And Lesley Ann Warren is funny in Victor/Victoria. But for me it's between Jessica Lange and Teri Garr for Tootsie. Both are asked to do very different things on opposite ends of the spectrum in that movie. Lange plays more the romance and the drama of the film while Garr is just a comedic firecracker in what may be her best role ever.

My winner
Teri Garr – Tootsie as Sandra "Sandy" Lester

Teri Garr gives the most enjoyable performance here -- and is one of the best parts of one of the great comedies of the decade, Her character is hilarious in any era, terrifically sympathetic and she feels really real. I just love this character and performance to pieces.

Stay tuned for my picks for 1982's Best Actor and Actress...