Stunning, moody 'Ad Astra' is sensational but also a tough sell

Space-based films have been all the rage as of late, and they often can follow a familiar formula -- a sad hero has unresolved drama back home (or in their hearts) and interstellar peril forces them to confront it. In that way, Ad Astra is not too wildly different, but it is unique in every other way.

It is quite possibly the best looking outer space genre film I've ever seen, with director James Gray deliberately taking his time in several sequences so you can feel the full weight of the top-notch production design here. This was an expensive picture, and its easy to see why.

That being said, its mysterious trailers suggest a more action-packed film than audiences are going to get. Keep in mind, there are three fantastic suspense set pieces that are more than worth the price of admission, but the real tension here is all in the mind our lead character, a veteran astronaut played by Brad Pitt.

This is Pitt's show and he delivers a subtle, moving portrait of a man who's been suppressing his emotions for far too long. It's maybe the most vulnerable performance he's ever given and coupled with his work in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, it suggests that his late career work might just eclipse his early stuff. It helps that he barely looks a day over 40 and can hold a close-up like few other actors on the planet.

This is ambition, heavy lifting sci-fi, heavily influenced by Terrence Malick (the voiceover narration), but also, arguably, Denis Villenueve and Stanley Kubrick too. It's dense plot involves a mission gone wrong, a man-made disaster threatening the earth, father-son trauma and much more. And I worry, after a soft-ish opening, it'll be one of those misunderstood gems which will be deemed a failure because it failed to recoup its expense.

I really hope I'm wrong, because intelligent, creative sci-fi like this can often represent cinema at its best -- think 2001 -- and while some audiences may leave Ad Astra scratching their head just a little bit, I think it's an overall rewarding visceral and emotional experience.

It's also a bit of stealth two-hander -- with Tommy Lee Jones delivering some typically stellar work in a small but pivotal role. But for Pitt this will be remembered as one of his great roles. There aren't a lot of pyrotechnics to the performance like his showy work in a movie like 12 Monkeys. He's a real person here but he has so much star presence he can make a simple look feel special.

He'll probably be rewarded at the Oscars for his more accessible turn as the easygoing stunt man Cliff Booth, that character is warmer than his character here, but really both performances are some of the year's best.

I appreciate that he's still stretching as a performer and now leaning on his credentials, and I appreciate Gray, who's become a celebrated auteur, being willing to make such a contemplative space opera and trust that audiences will go along with it.

'Where's My Roy Cohn?': A portrait of pathetic man in the shadows

Roy Cohn was an objectively ugly person, both inside and out. And the new documentary, Where's My Roy Cohn?, takes great pains to say that both by frequently panning over photos of him with his dead-eyed and by featuring talking heads who stop just short of calling him the devil himself.

I will admit to having had a longtime fascination with Cohn. First off, I'm a history buff and have also always been fascinated by the post-World War II American political climate, where fervent anti-communism led to some of the most tragic national and geopolitical decision-making.

Cohn was the mythic dark heart of that era -- both as a political powerbroker and as a corrupt legal mind. He was undeniably brilliant, strangely charismatic and one of the cruelest hypocrites in modern public American life.

He's returned to prominence recently as his once close personal friendship with one Donald J. Trump has re-entered the public consciousness. The film gets its title from an infamous quote Trump is said to have uttered in frustration, when his self-appointed Cabinet members refused to commit crimes on his behalf. The thinking went, Cohn would have.

And the film underlines again and again, sometimes comically, just how venal Cohn was and flagrant he was about breaking the rules to get his way. There are some underpinnings about being the product of an unhappy arranged marriage and living his entire life as a self-hating closeted gay man.

But, you don't leave this movie feeling sympathy for Cohn. In fact, he comes across as rather pathetic, especially towards the end of his life where he desperately tries to convince 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace that he isn't dying of AIDS and isn't gay, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

He also seems a little pitiful when boasting about his friendship with Trump, who would characteristically abandon Cohn once his AIDS diagnosis when public (and shortly after the attorney was disbarred for decades of misconduct).

In a way, his pupil became the master. Like Cohn, Trump never admits fault, brags about breaking the rules and thrives on media manipulation.

It almost doesn't matter that Trump had one tenth the intellect that Cohn had, he clearly saw that this was a man who like him had a knack for stealing focus even if he was also objectionable on almost every human level.

And while Where's My Roy Cohn? doesn't do anything to reinvent the form, it is engrossing. It plunges deeper into some of Cohn's most infamous chapters, including his involvement with Joseph McCarthy and his representation of mafia crime bosses like John Gotti.

Cohn himself, who clearly loved to bluster about his own power, ironically admits towards the end of his life that he would never truly escape McCarthy's shadow and he was right, his obit calls out his treacherous role in the witch hunts of the 1950s. And now, he's only being resurrected again because of his association with Trump.

That's not a very enviable epitaph for a man who fancied himself a historic powerbroker.

I could help but think and hope, as I watched his benefactor -- McCarthy -- reduced to silence with that legendary, withering 'have you no sense of decency?' retort, that Trump will one day meet some form of the same fate, that his name and Trumpism, will achieve a kind of infamy that can't be redeemed. Here's hoping. Because I don't want to live in a world influenced by Roy Cohn and you shouldn't want to either.

The squandered opportunity 'Rambo: Last Blood' seems to be

I have not seen the latest and what is supposed to be the last installment of Sylvester Stallone's Rambo franchise, Rambo: Last Blood, and if the early reviews are any indication, I shouldn't bother to.

 It's apparently not just jingoistic (which most of the Rambo films are) but particularly tone deaf culturally, considering the fact that it makes villains out of Mexicans at a time when the president of the United States is already singling them out for disdain on a daily basis.

While I can't say I'm surprised that Last Blood is a lunkheaded disaster -- most of Stallone's films are -- I will say I was hoping it wouldn't be, if for no other reason than there could have been a great final Rambo movie made, one that recalls the gritty realism of the first one -- First Blood -- but also because Stallone proved with the Creed movies that he could wring genuine pathos and power by resurrecting one of his long dormant heroes.

With the exception of Rocky V and probably whatever silly idea he has to resurrect the franchise again sans Michael B. Jordan, Stallone has never really erred with the Rocky character. He's great as Balboa, the humble and sweet gentle giant, who always gets up just when you think he's down for the count.

Rambo, his other most iconic role, has always been more problematic. In First Blood, he is a real person -- a veteran who is pushed to the brink by a particularly sadistic police force.

Sure, that film's message about the mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans may be a tad on the nose, but as a genre picture its a great cat and mouse adventure, and Stallone gives a truly impassioned, compelling performance in the lead role.

But somehow three years later, Stallone seems to have doubled down on all the macho posturing and turned out a sequel that far more explicitly tries to re-litigate the Vietnam war, and as Rambo puts it, 'win this time.' In one of the most ludicrous blockbusters of all time, Rambo manages to single-handedly lead a one man army to take on the Viet Cong and save POWs to boot. It's a lot of fun in a totally '80s way, but hardly real filmmaking.

Rambo III commits the cardinal sin of being boring. Stallone has probably never been more shredded and inert, but besides the unfortunate veneration of the Taliban, the film doesn't have much staying power and was deemed something of a box office disappointment when it came out back in 1988.

Twenty years later, Stallone tried to bring Rambo back. He was hot off the heels of resurrecting Rocky in 2006's underrated Rocky Balboa, and I suppose he thought he could make lightning strike twice. It didn't, 2008's Rambo is a bloody free-for-all, but it's shoddy looking and politically a little murky, too.

Now, a part of me admires Stallone's hustle if not his values. He's clearly got a titanic ego -- why else would he refuse to let any of his franchises go quietly as he enters his mid-70s all while griping that he deserved to make more money on the earlier ones -- but he is also an undeniably striking screen presence, and when he has a good director with the ability to coral his worst instincts, he can be magnificent (again, see the Creed films).

When I had heard he was seeking to dig up Rambo for presumably one last time, I was open to the movie being a compliment to the very first film in the series. Maybe we'd get more character development and like in Creed, deal honestly with the fact that Stallone is now a very old man, albeit a relatively fit one.

But no. As much as I wanted to hope the film would be something different -- it's apparently 89 minutes of trash. I'm sure it's eye rolling, guffaw-worthy trash but when you read haughty critics saying that the character deserved better, you know it must be bad.

After all, who really loves Rambo or cares about Rambo. Rambo has become almost shorthand for a musclebound brand of toxic masculinity. At the very least Last Blood could have explored how a character like this feels anachronistic in the post-#MeToo world in which we live, but instead its apparently a pretty drab affair.

Stallone has always been a frustrating person to be a fan of for this very reason. He could have been Butch in Pulp Fiction, but instead he stars in a forgettable erotic thriller like The Specialist. After getting an improbable Oscar nomination, he could have pursued more prestige roles, or at least tried to get parts that showed his range, but he keeps making dumb action movies like it's still 1985.

I will probably get around to watching Last Blood eventually, after all, I'm a completist. But I am sorry to say he may have won the battle but lost the war for cinematic immortality.

'Hustlers' is so good it had me hyperventilating; it's a modern classic

Hustlers is many things. It's one of the best, most enjoyable movies I've seen all year, it's a celebration of women both behind and in front of the camera, it's a coming out party for writer-director Lorene Scafaria as a major filmmaker and a breakthrough for a never-better Jennifer Lopez, who finally has a role and film up to her formidable talents.

I can't express how much I love this movie. From the very first frame it took hold of me and didn't let go.

It's a remarkable magic trick of a movie, the first film I can remember seeing where men truly were inconsequential and on the periphery. It almost feels accurate to call this film a female GoodFellas but I don't want to reduce its impact by comparing it to a male-dominated drama.

This is a film about some really intense friendships, some pretty outrageous behavior and it has sex appeal to spare (I mean, my GAWD, I think my glasses fogged up). I worry that some people will presume that this film is about T & A and miss out on how moving it actually is. If people can go in unbiased they'll be endlessly charmed and entertained. It's the movie I wanted Ocean's Eight to be, quite frankly.

It doesn't feel exploitative or cheap. It's really just a well-crafted crowdpleaser of the first order. Even the closing credits are a blast.

It's got virtuoso single takes, a banging soundtrack and its very, very well-written with a mix of unforgettable quotable lines and authentic human moments between J-Lo and her crew, which is anchored by a fantastic Constance Wu, whose demonstrating yet again what a versatile movie star she can be.

Wu has the tougher role, she has to be the babe in the woods who winds up getting too deep in a criminal scheme hatched by Lopez's character which I can't spoil. She has to run the gamut of emotions here -- not unlike she did in Crazy Rich Asians -- but she never makes it look difficult. She is totally credible in every scene and she really packs a wallop.

The rest of the supporting cast is note perfect, although Cardi B and Lizzo are here in glorified cameo roles, which may disappoint some fans expecting more of them. But what they do get is Lopez in the role of her career.

Fans of Out of Sight and Selena have been waiting decades now for Lopez to show off the dramatic chops she clearly always had. Somehow her career in pop music and series of unremarkable rom coms diminished her reputation. But this film should put to rest any skeptics about her.

She's so charismatic here, and yes, incomprehensibly beautiful, but there's an empowering spirit that her character brings to every scene she's in, she's as layered and lovable as any Scorsese or Tarantino protagonist. She's the host of this party -- and she makes you want to live in the world as long as you can.

If there is a quibble with this film it may be that its theme of getting over on the rich is a little too on the nose, but I loved it -- it felt timely -- even if the film beautifully evokes the post-Great Recession era throughout.

It's the kind of movie I root for to be a hit -- not just because it was written, directed and starring so many remarkable women -- but because it's also so damn fun and so damn good. Now, give J-Lo the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, she truly deserves it.

Wait a second, do I actually love 'Snake Eyes'? Yup I do

Snake Eyes occupies an interesting spot in director Brian DePalma's rollercoaster of a filmography. It's a bit of a blank check film for him after the biggest commercial success of his career -- 1996's Mission: Impossible, he was was suddenly a hot commodity again after a string of flops earlier that decade.

Snake Eyes is in every way a more traditional DePalma movie that first, still spectacular Tom Cruise movie was. It is all style over substance, it's got some truly virtuoso sequences and a cast of scumball characters, chief among them our 'hero' -- a hilariously gonzo Nicolas Cage.

I remember seeing the movie in theaters and being very taken with it, if a bit let down by its abrupt ending (a studio compromise, after DePalma's original more symbolic 'biblical' ending was shot down). It did pretty good at the box office, but got mixed to bad reviews (as nearly all DePalma movies do) and has since come to be viewed, alongside 2000's Mission to Mars, the beginning of DePalma's decline amid an attempt to win over more mainstream audiences.

Carla Gugino in Snake Eyes

Even hardcore DePalma fans and defenders like me have usually considered it one of his lesser films. But for some reason, it plays really well to me now just over 20 years after its initial release. It's a breezy 90 minutes -- and it really moves. It's funny, it's stylish, it's got atmosphere and an unconventional lead performance which is -- don't get me wrong, insane -- but also wildly entertaining. At least, to me.

Snake Eyes famously opens with an incredibly ambitious single take which starts behind the scenes of a marquee heavy boxing match and then leads to the action just outside the ring. Our guide is Cage who struts like a peacock and was in the midst of a real hot streak as a bizarro A-list leading man.

In this film he is a pretty repugnant creep given to histrionics at the drop of a hat. He's the kind of guy who would lift an index finger and hold it in front of your face if you approached them during a phone call, if that makes any sense.

I've come to, especially in the wake of Mandy, better appreciate Cage's appeal as an actor. He is a risk taker, he is a provocateur but he also has control of his instrument

He is cast opposite Gary Sinise, who despite a sour expression, has a kind of old fashioned, aw shucks appeal and his more straight arrow law enforcement friend. Does the movie reveal SPOILER ALERT that he is the villain a little early for my tastes? Maybe -- but the reversal gives Sinise the opportunity to show more range and with repeat viewing his work during the single take sequence is just as impressive as Cage's, albeit more lowkey.

Once the big single take sequence is over -- it's a whodunit (a lawmaker is assassinated during the fight) which involves security cams, interrogations, and of course because it's DePalma, copious amounts of blood.

Snake Eyes' plot is not the most brilliant, nor is its pat conclusion, but DePalma is interested in giving you a purely visual experience here, one that isn't as concerned with logic or reality.

Take for instance a God's eye view of several different hotel rooms where action is playing out in each one. It's another show-off-y one-take beauty that doesn't need to be in the movie, serves no real purpose but looks incredible and is a ton of fun.

In this way, Snake Eyes is more of a sibling to 2002's Femme Fatale, a similarly ludicrous but irresistible potboiler where the camera is almost always showing you something interesting, even if that something is trashy, silly, confusing or one and the same.

This to me is the appeal of DePalma, his movies are rarely going for an emotional punch (his woefully underrated Casualties of War is a big exception here) and usually aren't looking to make some profound statement. They're just about kinetic cinematic satisfaction.

I could watch that opening take of this film, which feels like about a third of the movie, without the sound on and still be riveted by the smoothness of the moves and audacity of the imagery.

It's definitely not for everyone's tastes -- and for some -- the second half of the film is simply too much of a letdown to include it among DePalma's best, I think it's worth a re-evaluation after all this time.

1994 Oscars: Who should have won Best Picture and Director?

Why is this man running?

Here is the last installment of my flashback to the Oscars honoring films of 1994. This has retroactively come to be seen as particular strong, game-changing year and it's hard not keep harping on the Pulp Fiction of it all.

It's simply, for better or worse, the most influential movie to be released that year and arguably the one that has held up the best. But there are other worthy pictures from that year, too.

I've already weighed in on the acting races, now let's look at  two of the last major categories: Best Picture and Best Director.

Don't expect many surprises here...

Best Picture
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption
Quiz Show
Pulp Fiction 
Four Weddings and Funeral

Who won: Forrest Gump
What should have won: Pulp Fiction

All things considered this is a pretty strong field, and I don't hate Forrest Gump. It certainly charmed me 25 years ago. It's just not a movie that has aged particularly well. What was quaint in 1994 is a bit off putting now. Meanwhile, Four Weddings and Funeral feels like the kind of high class comedy that can break into races like these every so often.

Again, not a perfect movie -- a lot depends on how charmed you are by Hugh Grant's stammering routine.

Quiz Show is a real underrated gem which is probably overlooked because its more ornate and old fashioned. I think it may be Redford's best film as a director and a really fascinating story about one of the first big TV scandals. Probably if it had been a bigger commercial success it could have rivaled Gump, but alas the latter film was too much of a behemoth to overcome.

The Shawshank Redemption may be a tad sentimental and hokey for some people, but it's hard to deny how effective it is. There's a reason it's become such a stable of cable television -- it's episodic, it's engrossing and it has a very satisfying pay-off. One will never know if the film could have been a hit with a better, more familiar name... but it's clearly held up all these years later.

But for me, the answer is Pulp Fiction. Again, it's not Tarantino's best film or my personal favorite -- but it is the one that he will probably always be best remembered for. I sometimes think the timeline stuff in the movie is well-done but not entirely necessary.

However, the performances, dialogue and atmosphere are special. It seems to take place in both the past and in a contemporary setting (a feeling only further informed by an extended sequence in a 1950s theme bar).

Its loses points for a particularly tasteless cameo from Tarantino itself -- but it's one of those movies that people are going to be watching and quoting for 100 years.

Best Director
Robert Redford, Quiz Show
Robert Zemeckis, Forrest Gump
Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
Krzysztof Kieślowski, Red
Woody Allen. Bullets Over Broadway

Who won: Ronbert Zemeckis
Who should have won: Quentin Tarantino

I guess one of these days I need see Bullets Over Broadway, if for other reason that I'm curious about why it got such a rapturous reception from the Academy. For a period Allen was almost always assured a Best Screenplay nomination but he's only gotten director noms a handful a times (still, an impressive feat). It goes without saying that his best work is behind him and his reputation has been permanently sullied, but this nomination is testament to his respect within industry since it came just two years after a scandal that should probably have derailed his career.

Kieślowski's Red is one of three films (the others' Blue and White) in a series providing a mosaic of life in France. I have only seen it once and recall it being my favorite of the three,  but I can't remember it well enough to make the case for him winning here.

Redford already had an Oscar for his underrated Ordinary People. He's largely fallen off as a director since this high point. Other than The Horse Whisperer I don't think his latter works have really worked, but he's clearly a smart, thoughtful actor and filmmaker and this movie reflects that.

Zemeckis has always been like a Spielberg, Jr., he's capable of wonderful pop entertainment with the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but sometimes his work can get overwhelming by his preoccupation with tech. When he's earthbound -- like with Flight -- he can make interesting movies, but by and large he doesn't seem interested in that. For its flaws, Forrest Gump is an ambitious movie, and he pulls it off, he just wouldn't have been my choice.

Tarantino was very young, very obnoxious and very overexposed following the success of Pulp Fiction, so I get why there would be a resistance to honoring him with the Best Director Oscar this early in his career. He wouldn't be nominated again for 15 years and he lost out on a deserving bid of Inglourious Basterds. But ten years after that, I think he'll have the best shot of winning in his controversial career with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which is perhaps his best reviewed film since Pulp Fiction.

'Ready or Not' comes close to being great, but it's simply good

The new film Ready or Not is not quite 'elevated horror' nor is it a purely pop genre confection like this weekend's blockbuster It: Chapter Two. It's struggling to find an audience and its probably because it doesn't fit in either of those lanes and its tonal shifts do keep it from being the classic it could have been.

That said, it's a pretty fun, bloody ride -- with a likable lead performance from newcomer Samara Weaving -- it just can't seem to decide what it wants to be.

It has a sense of humor -- it clearly wants to take shots at the privileged class -- and the more the film leans into its jokes the better it works, but the melodramatic stuff doesn't land.

The premise is pretty simple. A bizarro rich family engages in a ritual whenever a new family member joins in order to preserve their bloodline that involves the newcomer playing a game -- in this case Hide or Seek -- which can be deadly.

The cat and mouse stuff is solid here but not particularly exceptional. This is that rare movie that probably could stand to be not quite as gorgeous looking as it is. In fact, this movie made me appreciate Get Out so much more because it not only felt more grounded but also it deftly made its political points without detracting from its story.

The family resents and looks down on Weaving's character but we never truly understand why. The rich villains (with the exception of an always amusing Adam Brody) are mostly broad caricatures. And the first half of the film drags a bit while finding its way to its inevitable showdown.

The second half is more exciting, especially when Weaving's situation continues to spiral downward. I wish the movie had kept that tone going throughout -- this could have been a really insightful investigation of the ruthlessness of some wealthy people. I think it thinks it's that, but it's really just a nasty little genre movie, which is totally fine, if not exceptional.

It feels like it could have been a streaming Netflix movie, not a must see, but a totally diverting night in on the couch. If horror wasn't on such a hot streak right now, I might recommend it more, but for me it was just a B.

Bill Hader is the best thing about disappointing 'It: Chapter Two'

There are some very good, pretty scary set pieces in It: Chapter Two -- (an extended sequence in a hall of mirrors comes to mind) there should be since the horror blockbuster runs nearly three hours (and you'll feel it).

Unfortunately, most of jolts are unearned jump scares and the power of this new Pennywise, which was so fresh a couple years ago, has diminished a bit, too.

I've never read Stephen King's massive book, to which these movies appear to be slavishly devoted, but my sense is (after watching the It television movie starring Tim Curry) that the adult half was always the weaker of the two sections.

It makes a lot of sense in retrospect. Pennywise and the different forms he takes would be and should be frightening to a vulnerable job. The adults in this movie seem like they could easily overpower him, so much so that during the climax Pennywise grows to the size of a Jurassic Park dinosaur.

And that's indicative of what's wrong with the movie. It eschews the charming and funny character development of the first film in favor of some pretty shoddy CGI and a lot of mumbo jumbo about "rituals." The adult "losers" are a bit of mixed bag.

For instance, Bill Hader is dynamite whenever he's on screen -- but on the other end of the spectrum there's Old Spice guy Isaiah Mustafa in the thankless, underwritten role of Mike, a.k.a. 'the black one."

Jessica Chastain gets top billing but she never really has much to chew on, especially after a domestic violence subplot involving her character is introduced and abandoned with haste. This is a movie that both feels rushed and bloated, which is never a great sign.

Hader has it easier, his character gets the best lines and is allowed to have the most realistic reactions one can have in this supernatural rollercoaster. He also has the storyline with the most genuine pathos. I almost would like to see a film totally centered on him and his confrontation with his own demons, but of course this series isn't meant to take chances.

Instead, an inordinate amount of screen-time is devoted to amusing at first and then quite tiresome cameo from Stephen King himself. Some sequences are simply more loud and gross than scary and by the end I found myself pining for the more slow burn thrills of so-called 'elevated horror.'

Those films -- think Hereditary or The Witch -- fill you with a growing, ominous dread. This is more of a piece of pop entertainment, for better or worse, and I am curious how this one will play with the more mainstream audiences it was intended for.

There are some very good laughs in the film -- in fact I wish the movie was a lot less serious -- it's what made the first installment so much fun. Instead we are forced to watch James McAvoy screaming, crying and working that American accent hard, while working in the stutter his character is supposed to be afflicted with. He is earnest and committed, as is the movie, but I was relieved when it was over and not because I was so terrified by it.

It'll make all the money in the world -- and that's fine, I certainly don't regret seeing it, but I can't say I'm not a bit let down by this enterprise.

Here's hoping the upcoming Shining sequel, Doctor Sleep, deviates a bit more from our expectations.

1994 Academy Awards: Who really should have won Part II

Hey y'all, here I am with the second installment on my flashback roughly 25 years ago to a pretty infamous Oscars. For a time, the Forrest Gump defeat of Pulp Fiction in the Best Picture race was always cited alongside Dances with Wolves defeat of GoodFellas and Ordinary People's defeat of Raging Bull, one of the biggest misses in movie history.

Since then there's been Crash, some have argued Chicago (I wouldn't, that wasn't a very strong Best Picture field), The Artist, The King's Speech and whole bunch of other womp womp winners over the least several years. Like I said in the previous post, you can't be a movie fan and not have a love-hate relationship with the Oscars.

It's just a silly awards show and, somehow, the most important thing ever.

Let's talk about the supporting races.

In the men's supporting category it's one of the more controversial wins in recent memory, partially because Samuel L. Jackson's very human reaction to losing became a beloved meme, but also because he really, really should have won.

Best Supporting Actor
Martin Landau, Ed Wood
Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction
Gary Sinese, Forrest Gump
Paul Scofield, Quiz Show
Chazz Palminteri, Bullets Over Broadway

Who won: Martin Landau, Ed Wood
Should win: Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction

If it weren't for Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction would just be a stylized throwback crime film. It doesn't have the same narrative bang as many of Tarantino's later works, and its weaknesses are largely papered over because of Jackson's galvanizing, breakthrough work here. He gives one of my favorite performances ever in this movie, just wipes everybody else of the screen. He should have been in the Best Actor race and his loss here is unconscionable.

Martin Landau gives a wonderfully funny, totally unrecognizable performance as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood, it's definitely the second best performance in this category though. I understand at the time there was some expectation that Landau would die soon and deserved career recognition, but jokes on the Academy I guess because he lives for close to 25 more years, not too shabby.

Gary Sinese's committed work as Lt. Dan is probably one of the elements of that film that holds up the best, especially since his character's inherent cynicism feels more in keeping with the times we're living in now. I think Sinese is an interesting actor who seemed to really have a moment in the 90s (I particularly liked him in Snake Eyes) and then just disappeared. I know he's right winger and has done a lot of TV, but he deserves an interesting new role to resurrect his career.

I was one of the few people to see Robert Redford's underrated Quiz Show in theaters. It's a gorgeous-looking, old fashioned picture -- yes-- but it's still fantastic. Scofield's great in it, as is Ralph Fiennes, but I think John Turturro gives perhaps his best performance ever in it. He should have been nominated.

For some reason, I've never seen Bullets Over Broadway, although I like Chazz Palminteri. It's a weird Woody Allen blind spot for me and I feel like his 90s are generally kind of lost period where very few of the films are very good.

And speaking of being a shitty man, I must admit to not having seen four out of the five nominated performances in the Best Supporting Actress category. I am sure Dianne Wiest was a fine and worthy winner, so I can't argue against her in favor of Uma Thurman, who's work in Pulp Fiction I just adore. That final scene between her and Travolta, which she totally slays (see at 6:26 mark), is one of the sweetest Tarantino ever committed to film. It's a shame their relationship appears to have deteriorated due to his behind the scenes assholery, since they really made such a great team.

1994 Academy Awards: Who should have won in top categories?

Hello! Here's the second installment of my recently made up series where I re-litigate Oscars of the past. I tend not to take into account whether someone has been exposed as a #MeToo scumbag, think Kevin Spacey, but moreso reflecting on the performances or films with 20/20 hindsight.

I'm someone who believes the Academy Awards more often than not get it wrong, but 1994 feels like a particularly galling year. Keep in mind I'm talking about a ceremony that technically took place in 1995 but was honoring films from the year 1994.

Today, 1994 is viewed fondly as both a good year for indie cinema -- especially with the mainstream breakthrough success of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction -- and also a solid year for big popular films like The Lion King and sigh, Forrest Gump.

Forrest Gump would go on to win Best Picture, a result that may not have been controversial at the time, (I was too young and disinterested in the Oscars horse race at the time to remember if it was considered an upset or a front-runner), but most discerning cinephiles today would say that it's baby boomer fellating trash save for a few graceful acting choices by Tom Hanks (albeit ones that make no sense character-wise. Hanks' Gump is simply not intelligent enough to be as self aware as he is in the closing segments of that movie, but I digress)

Let's go back in time and make our fantasy picks...

Best Actor

Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption

Nigel Hawthrone, The Madness of King George

Paul Newman, Nobody's Fool

Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump

John Travolta, Pulp Fiction

Who won: Tom Hanks

Who should have won: Morgan Freeman

As I just said, Hanks is probably the saving grace of Forrest Gump, a film that seems to want to codify the 1960s with quaint exaggerations and really has no core philosophy other than 'life goes on.' Today, the very premise of this movie might earn picketing, but Hanks is likable and earnest throughout and you'd have to be missing a part of your soul to be unmoved by his graveside chat with Jenny. 

Still, he shouldn't have won for this. His previous Oscar for the previous year's Philadelphia was sufficient and well-earned. And his later work in Saving Private Ryan, Captain Phillips and The Post (just to name a few) have cemented his status as 'the great American leading man' -- but this is just a bit of a groan in retrospect.

I'll have to put Hawthorne aside, having never seen his film. In Nobody's Fool, Newman is terrific, giving the kind of gruff, effecting performance he seemed to so effortlessly knock out of the park in so many of his later career roles. He is certainly deserving, but he'd already won one six years earlier as another lovable son of bitch in The Color of Money so I would pass on him. 

Travolta's an interesting case. He's good in Pulp Fiction, totally fine, but there is nothing about the performance that screams Best Actor to me or Academy Award nomination at all. I suppose he deserves kudos for being credible as a hitman given his image at the time, but the real heavy lifting dramatically in Pulp Fiction is all on Samuel L. Jackson and to a lesser extent Bruce Willis than it is Travolta. 

In a just world it should be Jackson in this Best Actor race and not Travolta. He gives perhaps the greatest performance of his career in that movie and it's a travesty that he didn't win then and hasn't won ever for his fantastic work over the years.

For me, the winner in this crop should be a no brainer -- Morgan Freeman. First of all, good on the people behind the Shawshank campaign to recognize that it's Freeman who is the real lead of that movie. Sure it's Tim Robbins on the poster and he might even have more screen time, but it's Freeman who drives the narrative, whose journey is completed at the end of the film and while the role might have been a touch magical negro, but he imbues it with such gritty integrity that I think it rises above that. 

The scene where he finally drops his sunny facade before a parole board is some of the finest acting I have ever seen. He'd be rewarded years later for a solid supporting turn in Million Dollar Baby, but that was clearly a consolation for getting robbed for this.

When it comes to Best Actress, I have to plead the fifth. I haven't seen enough of these performances to fairly critique them. Jessica Lange won for a relatively obscure film called Blue Sky, which I've never seen. She's great, but had won before for Tootsie. I've seen Nell, with Jodie Foster, but don't remember it too well outside of her oft-parodied vocal affectation.

Probably the only performance I really vividly remember is Susan Sarandon in The Client. She was very good in it, but would win next year for Dead Man Walking, so she'd be just fine. Basically, I'm agnostic on this one. Honestly, I might have given it to Jamie Lee Curtis that year for True Lies. She was a long shot potential Best Actress nominee (she was nominated for the Golden Globe) and that actually feels like the most memorable leading lady performance from exactly 25 years ago.

Stay tuned for part two, where I'll take a look at the supporting categories.