The best film won and other Oscar night observations

Lupita Nyong'o at the Academy Awards

I am still half awake because I stayed up to watch the entire Academy Awards telecast and although I wish I got more sleep last night, I must admit I really enjoyed the show.

Ellen DeGeneres once again struck the right tone as host -- I'm not sure why they don't give her this gig more often.

There were few, if any, leaden moments and for the most part, no surprises.

Still, 12 Years a Slave did triumph in the best picture race, which was far from a forgone conclusion. I had begun to think that Gravity had all the momentum, it was certainly the most rewarded film of the night with a total of 7 Oscar wins.

Apparently, 12 Years a Slave is already seeing an uptick in its box office (it's made $50 million to date) and hopefully this win will encourage more people to give it a chance. I know some of the Oscar clips made it look like a harrowing, unpleasant experience but this film really did inspire more than it made me sad or depressed.

There were a great crop of nominees this year. I have sung the praises and will buy (or already have) the blu-rays for American Hustle, Her, Nebraska, Gravity, The Wolf of Wall Street and Captain Phillips. But 12 Years a Slave was the best film of the year, and while it came up short in a lot of other categories, I'm glad it won the most important one.

Amy Adams and Bill Murray at the Oscars

There were other pleasures to behold last night too. Lupita Nyong'o's acceptance speech nearly made me cry, I'll take her genuine joy and sincerity over Matthew McConaughey's 'I'm my own biggest hero' nonsense. Pharrell's performance of "Happy" cemented his status as the most purely enjoyable pop performer around these days. And Bill Murray's nice little homage to the late Harold Ramis (despite their decades-long beef) was classic.

I suppose the show was still too long (did we really need a montage dedicated to film heroes?) but I was never completely bored, which is more than I can say for some of the more recent telecasts.

It's easy to see why some people hate the Oscars. There is something off-putting about the gaudiness of it and the pure capitalism of it all. And yet, I must admit I am seduced by its charms every year. I don't know anyone who hasn't fantasized about giving the acceptance speech of their life or partying with their favorite A-list star.

They break my heart sometimes, but I just can quit the Academy Awards.

Goodbye 'Rambo', I guess war really was 'in your blood'

"Killing's as easy as breathin'."

Only Sylvester Stallone can get away with saying (let alone writing) a line like that. After flirting with the possibility of a fifth Rambo film, the action icon seems to have dropped it. Which may be for the best because this 2008 swan sang is a fitting finale for the character.

I know there rumors of a origin story reboot of Rambo (is there any franchise Hollywood is willing not to resurrect and ruin?). But I can't imagine how anyone but Stallone can play this role, and even though he appears to in denial that he is pushing 70, audiences aren't

Watching Rambo after the previous three is edifying because the movie is essentially a combination of the most distinct elements of the previous three.

It brings back the edgier, more grizzled John Rambo from First Blood (which I appreciated), the intense machine-gunning action of Part II (which I expected) and the simplistic, speechifying right-wing politics of Rambo III (which I hated).

Still, this movie looks and feels like a legitimate Rambo film, which, coming 20 years after the last installment is pretty impressive. This period is an interesting one for Stallone. In a 2-year span he took the reins of his two most iconic characters (Rocky and Rambo) resurrected them (in spite of all the late night comedian's incessant mocking of his age in the roles) and gave them the denouements they deserved.

Stallone the director

Rocky Balboa (2007) was more successful, both critically and commercially. But Rambo does have some of the old juice from the originals. It takes way too long for Rambo to spring into action (he's still the most reluctant of heroes) but when he does it's pretty fantastic. No one shoots a bow and arrow like this guy.

The movie's messaging is very Hallmark-cardy. My girlfriend and I still can't figure out what Rambo's talking about when he says "Live for nothing. Die for something." We get that you want to die for "something" but why would anyone live for "nothing"?

Without Trautman in his life (Crenna died in 2003), Rambo is truly alone is this film. "Fuck the world," he declares early in the film. As someone who clearly suffers from undiagnosed PTSD, he interestingly likes to surround himself with dutiful indigenous people while living a mostly hermit-like existence.

His philosophy seems to be that everyone and nearly everything is hopelessly corrupt. He thinks no conflict can really be solved (at least when your enemy is evil) without weapons and he appears to form attachments to pretty girls very easily. Other than that, he's pretty much a non-stop killing machine.

Stallone wastes a ton of screen-time documenting the atrocities of the villains in this movie (which in this case, are the Burmese military government). But I think he is being 'Sly' here. He needs to make the bad guys seem so bad that it "justifies" the massive killings he will perpetrate on them later in the film.

This movie allegedly holds the record for the most people killed all screen and the last 20 minutes have a sort of gonzo quality to them. Stallone set out to make the goriest, most relentlessly violent movie he could and he kind of did it (except he curiously, never takes off his shirt this time).

And the ending, which is all kinds of corny, is still kind of cool because it brings everything full circle. Rambo finally comes home (in his fashionable army jacket and duffel bag) and seems to have found some semblance of peace, even though "war," as he puts it, is in his "blood."

'Rambo III': Things start to get a little boring, which is a bummer

A Rambo movie can be many things, but it can't be boring, otherwise it serves no purpose. Unfortunately, for the most part, Rambo III is a total bummer.

The character does get a very cool opening scene, where he's inexplicably stick-fighting for extra money in Thailand. It's the kind of kinetic, very physical action that Sylvester Stallone really can sell.

But soon we learn that his increasingly mopey Rambo is hanging out with monks, acting all zen and basically not doing what he does best, which is kill. Rambo is always the reluctant mercenary but in this film he is especially in noble mode which kind of detracts from all the fun.

And the makers of the film made the embarrassing decision to make the plight of Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan the centerpiece of their film.

Rambo (and by extension we in the audience) have to sit patiently while inauthentic actors speechify about how cruel and barbarous the Russians are. Moments like this make the hooray for democracy finale of Rocky IV seem subtle by comparison.

Richard Crenna as Trautman

As with the previous Rambo movies, there is some decent action sequences here and there but much of it is shot in a murky, discombobulated way. First Blood and Rambo: First Blood II both have a faster pace and simpler stories. This one is all abrupt starts and stops and Rambo is given far too much sappy dialogue. His body is sick in this movie though -- made me want to work out the whole time. He literally looks like a piece of meat.

I still enjoy Richard Crenna's Trautman character, even while being tortured he manages to talk up how amazing Rambo is. I think these movies have even added camp value if you just assume Trautman is secretly in love with Rambo -- he certainly acts like it.

With a few notable exceptions, it's usually in part three where film franchises go off the rails a bit. Part II remains the biggest hit of Stallone's career, even topping all the Rocky movies, and so this one had big shoes to fill. It's clearly got a larger budget than the previous Rambos, the scale of this production is much bigger -- but the movies have gotten away from what made the original, First Blood, special.

That movie actually had some genuine suspense and something to say about the military industrial complex. It wasn't deep but it at least was intriguing. Rambo III is just a bunch of explosions -- and it doesn't hold up all that well.

Still, it's not the worst thing to have on in the background during a lazy Sunday afternoon.

'You made it Rambo!': 'First Blood: Part II' ridiculous in a good way

Sylvester Stallone in Rambo: First Blood Part II

It literally starts with a meaningless explosion. This movie lets you know what it is from the very first second. It's going to be big and dumb. But fun.

Rambo: First Blood Part II is one of the most glorified B-movies I've ever seen with such unabashed right-wing jingoism it's not even funny, except of course when it is.

It looks cheap -- even though this was the biggest box office hit of Sylvester Stallone's career. It features perhaps the least convincing Vietnam ever put on film and the same goes for the actors portraying Vietnamese people.

The movie spells out everything for us. The bureaucrats are the bad guys and Rambo is the noble warrior, constantly betrayed by those pesky liberals back at home. Comically he is sprung from prison in the opening (asking "Can we win this time?") and asked to just "take pictures" of POWs trapped in Vietnam. Part of the fun of this movie is embracing how ridiculous the first act is.

Everything about this movie is overheated and at times the movie seems to be a homoerotic homage to Stallone's formidable physique and yet there are some really enjoyable action scenes here.

Even though First Blood showed us Rambo sneaking up and taking out his enemies in increasingly elaborate ways, Part II ups the ante.

He never killed anyone in the first film (at least not intentionally) but here he revels in his mercenary tactics and we, the audience, get a charge out of the mayhem.

"Why are there Russians here?" my girlfriend earnestly asked me while we watched this. I paused, and then offered, "Cause they're Communists?"

That's the absurdity of this film. It doesn't even try to attempt any kind of realistic portrayal of 1985 Vietnam. It's no surprise that a Rambo cartoon came out not long after this movie exploded because this is pretty much a comic book movie without the super powers.

At this point the Rambo movies found their formula. Rambo is given a mission (or chooses one) and is rapidly betrayed, he is captured and tortured (preferably in as little clothes as possible) and then he breaks free and single-handedly wipes out an army of foreigners.

Oh yeah, and you gotta add a beautiful female sidekick who speaks very broken English lest someone think our hero is gay.

Rambo doesn't haven't to be as resourceful in this movie as he was in the fist movie. He has enough artillery to just blow everyone away. And boy does he ever. If you're like me and you laugh out loud when someone is blown up via bow and arrow -- this is the movie for you.

Is this a good movie? Obviously no. But It's really entertaining. The scenes where Stallone is more "stealthy" Rambo, as my girlfriend describes it, are still pretty badass. And the moment when Rambo tells the bureaucrat Murdoch "I'm coming to get you!" right before he goes berserk on his cruel captors is 80s-era classic cheese.

And I am happy I took a bite. Although I could do without that last Rambo speech. Yikes.

'Gravity' is going to win and the rest of my Oscar predictions

Tonight is the big night. The Oscars. And for once it's actually shaping up to a be a very competitive race.

After a less than auspicious start, 2013 actually turned out to be a very good year for movies.

And there are actually three movies that are considered roughly equal odds for best picture. I can't remember the last time something like that has happened in that category.

Usually it's the acting races which present the most intrigue but with the exception of best supporting actress, the other major categories are all but foregone conclusions.

Dallas Buyers Club, a movie I enjoyed but found fairly conventional, is expected to take both male acting Oscars and Blue Jasmine's Cate Blanchett is a shoo-in for best actress.

As I prep for my girlfriend's now-annual Oscar party I will reveal my picks for my ballot's major categories, will a little of my own commentary to boot.

Best Actor

Matthew McConaughey is winning this award and it is the crowning achievement of his full-blown career revival.

The truth is that McConaughey had been terrific in a few past roles (Lone Star, Dazed and Confused, Killer Joe) over the years, but his mainstream romantic comedy work so obscured his talent that virtually no one ever took him seriously.

His infamous arrest when he was caught naked, high and playing the bongos in his apartment was the most indelible image of the guy. He had that Nicolas Cage -- is there a method to his madness? -- vibe. But oddly enough it was his role in an otherwise lesser Soderbergh film, Magic Mike, that started to prove there was some wily wit behind that "alright, alright" persona.

He is very good in Dallas Buyers Club, even though I couldn't help but feel like it was such an overtly "Oscar-baity" role. I am impressed by the weight-loss even though I sometimes think it's too gimmicky. I'd honestly rather see DiCaprio (because he was better) or Ejiofor (because he gave my favorite performance) win this but it's all wrapped up for McConaughey.

Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine

Best Actress

I like when there are those performances, like Heath Ledger's in The Dark Knight or Javier Bardem's in No Country for Old Men, where it's just so clearly the best performance of the year in a certain category that you kind of just know after you've seen the film that it's going to wind up winning every award, including the Oscar.

Cate Blanchett had that kind of performance with her lead role in Blue Jasmine (another very strong Woody Allen film in a period that is starting to rival his 80s work, if not his 70s work in terms of quality). It was a very risky performance that stayed with you after you left the theater. She got to play an incredible range of emotions and personalities and she is the most deserving.

I thought Sandra Bullock was very effective in Gravity, if she hadn't already won an Oscar for The Blind Side (Hollywood couldn't abide Bullock being a two-time Academy Award winner at this point) she might have had a shot.

I also will say that I was thrilled to see Amy Adams included because she may have actually given my favorite performance in American Hustle, and while I don't expect her to win I'm excited to see more people giving her credit for being one of the best actresses of her generation.

But Blanchett has this one in the bag.

Best Supporting Actor

I can't help it, I find Jared Leto to be disingenuous. I've never been bowled over by his acting talent and he seems more than a little smug to me. And yet he is the surest thing on Oscar night.

He had some nice, tender moments in Dallas Buyers Club, particularly the scene where his drag queen character tries to dress conservatively to wrangle funds from his disapproving father. But his performance (to me) won't be remembered as particularly groundbreaking years from now.

Jonah Hill in The Wolf of Wall Street

I think Bradley Cooper proved he will be a leading man with staying power by giving a very smart and disarmingly funny performance in American Hustle.

I am really hoping Captain Phillips' Barkhad Abdi doesn't just get typecast in villain roles going forward because I think he could surprise us with his range.

And Fassbender may had the most difficult role in the group, but his performance has -- just like 12 Years a Slave itself -- not been given the credit it deserves.

I know it'll never happen but I really wish Jonah Hill would win this award. I know a lot of audiences still don't take him seriously because of his Superbad past. But he's actually a fantastic actor and his performance in The Wolf of Wall Street was wilder, funnier and ultimately scarier than anything he has ever done before.

I think of all the performances in this category, Hill's the one that we will remember years from now.

Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave

Best Supporting Actress

Speaking of memorable performances, both Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave) and Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle) gave two for the ages this past year.  This is precisely why they are considered neck-and-neck in the closet major race of the night besides best picture.

Momentum seems to keep shifting between these two incredibly appealing actresses and lately the tide seems to be turning in Lupita's favor. Lawrence just won last year, and the Academy Awards almost never grant back-to-back victories, especially when it comes to women.

Also Nyong'o, although she was an unknown and 12 Years a Slave was her first film, has managed to out-glam Lawrence on the awards show circuit, which really does make a difference with Oscar voters. Nyongo's media blitz seems to have worked to her benefit.

Furthermore, she gave arguably the most haunting and heartbreaking performance of the year.

Best Director

After a plethora of recent wins, the great Alfonso Cuaron appears to be the front-running filmmaker in this highly coveted category. Cuaron has been doing excellent work for years and finally broke through this year with his brilliantly tense sci-fi drama Gravity.

It's exciting to see work on a sci-fi film recognized, and Cuaron deserves so much credit for getting his vision made and for creating a blockbuster infused with real intelligence and emotion. David O'Russell (American Hustle) and Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave) are close behind him but Cuaron has won all the huge indicators, including the Director's Guild Award, which almost always predicts the eventual Oscar winner.

I really like Cuaron's work (Children of Men is one of the most underrated films of the past 10 years) and I'm excited to see the first Latino winner of best director but my heart breaks a little for McQueen, who's direction of 12 Years a Slave is certainly worthy of winning too. McQueen would be the first African-American filmmaker to win best director. Shockingly, he is only the third to ever be dominated for the prize.

But tonight will be Cuaron's night.

12 Years a Slave

Best Picture

For a long time I thought 12 Years a Slave was going to win this. It was going to be close but it seemed like this movie was just head and shoulders above its competition in terms of quality and impact. But since my initial predictions, so much has seemed to suggest that the film is fading.

First off, virtually every interview I read with an anonymous Oscar voter shows them giving every excuse they can to not vote for this film. The reasons given are usually bogus, but it's becoming clear that it's not as popular a choice as American Hustle or Gravity.

Secondly, almost every person I know socially who hasn't already seen the movie refuses to because they have presumed that it will be "too tough to watch" which can't bode well for its chances.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, yes the film is disturbing and painful in parts but its also ultimately triumphant and inspirational. Unfortunately, a lot of people just won't give it a chance.

Entertainment Weekly's Jeff Labrecque recently wrote an excellent column diagnosing the resistance to 12 Years a Slave. He compared it to a movie its does have a lot in common with, Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List, which, ironically, won best picture exactly 20 years ago.

That was a historical epic viewed as the definitive portrayal of one our history's great horrors, and had a reputation for its unflinching realism and brutality. And yet that film made roughly $40 million more at the box office and won just about every award the year it came out.

What's the difference? Certainly not the reviews. Labrecque brilliantly points out that with Schindler's List, American audiences could watch it with some detachment because the cruelty was being perpetrated by German Nazis, not us. In fact, we know watching that film that America helped liberate these people so there isn't the same guilt that audiences could/would feel while watching 12 Years a Slave.

Also, because that film is seen through the eyes of Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson), we are given a certain amount of safe distance from the emotional experience of enduring the Holocaust (which is a quibble a lot of people have with that film). Whereas in 12 Years a Slave we are forced to identify with a slave, albeit a kidnapped freeman, who is very much in the middle of all the unpleasantness. Unlike Schindler, we can not look away.

I think we also need to recognize that the Academy's voting body is still woefully under-representative of the American public. It's overwhelmingly older, white and male.

This is not a population that is well-known for its racial sensitivity and awareness. I think they will simply not want to reward such an overwhelmingly "black film."

So why does this matter?

Oscars mean big money for films, especially smaller films like 12 Years a Slave. A lot of people who might skip a movie normally will give it a second look if it benefits from all the free publicity of an Oscar win.

Also, the best picture award, at least from a historical perspective, makes a statement about what the consensus best film of the year was.

That said, of course the academy gets it wrong all the time especially recently when safer fare like The King's Speech and The Artist have topped far worthier films.

Cuaron directs Clooney, Bullock in Gravity

Gravity and American Hustle (the two films that are also considered front-runners for best picture) are already enormous hits and arguably would be with or without an Oscar victory. I also think they're not quite as great as 12 Years a Slave but in the end that won't matter. The race is between those two.

At the end of the day, the Oscars don't usually split best picture and director, and I think that gives Gravity an edge. It's also the most popular film box-office wise in the group so it could make the case for being the popular choice. It's also a groundbreaking technical achievement which seems to point the way towards the future of movie-making.

On the other hand American Hustle is more of an actor's movie, which appeals to the largest voting bloc of Academy voters (actors and actresses). Still, that movie feels too light and too small for best picture. I loved it but it wasn't an important movie, just a very entertaining one. It does seem to be beloved by the Hollywood establishment but I don't think voters want another Crash situation on their hands.

Here's the thing, because there are nine best picture nominees, the voting for the winner is weighted. Smart prognosticators point out that Gravity is far less polarizing than 12 Years a Slave and American Hustle, meaning it will almost always be ranked among voters' top three choices. If it beats 12 Years a Slave they will be a lot of disappointment but little outrage. It was a fantastic film and it will hold up over the years -- which to me marks a movie's greatness.

I, of course, could be wrong. The race is that close and if you didn't already have a reason to tune in tonight this would be it.

As a serious student of film, I'm supposed to not care about the Academy Awards, but I do. I love watching the pageantry, the emotional speeches, the endless montages. It was a good year for film no matter who ends up winning and I'm looking forward to a good show.

Oh, and if 12 Years a Slave pulls off some sort of upset -- I will be dancing on my couch.

'First Blood' is first rate (except for some old fashioned absurdity)

First Blood

First Blood is actually pretty great -- with a few caveats.

Watching it now for the second time (and not counting the times I've caught parts of the edited version on television) I was struck by its breakneck pace (Die Hard owes some of its DNA to this film) and Sylvester Stallone's quiet, but intense performance.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Rambo story, he plays a Vietnam vet who is wandering through Oregon trying to reconnect with an old war buddy. He quickly (and I mean before the credits are even through) learns his friend is dead and before he can get a bite to eat he starts getting harassed by local cops.

This is my problem with the film. John Rambo seems completely harmless and yet he is immediately labeled a troublemaker (despite appearing clean and polite they keep saying he looks and smells awful). The cops in this town are so insanely corrupt and belligerent they defy reason.

Brian Dennehy in First Blood

I'm not an idiot, I get that the filmmakers want to establish Brian Dennehy and his cohorts as villains so we as an audience don't feel any guilt about Stallone killing them in cold blood one by one, but a little character development and plotting wouldn't have hurt anyone.

Still, this is a very exciting and entertaining movie. This is Stallone at the peak of his powers. Unlike Schwarzenegger (who I adore, don't get me wrong) he is not a winky hero with pithy one-liners. He is just a silent, deadly machine. He develops his character entirely through his actions.

In this film, as least, he is almost existential and the Rambo character is a haunted, twisted soul.

I love the tone of this film. It's actually quite disturbing if you think about it too hard but once the Richard Crenna Col. Trautman character shows up to tell everyone how badass and unstoppable Rambo is you get swept up in the camp fun of the whole thing. We are invited to get off on Rambo's savagery and we totally do, even if we feel a little embarrassed about it afterwards.

The whole message about how the American soldiers returning from Vietnam were disrespected feels like hooey ("somebody wouldn't let us win"-- yeah, right) but Stallone does do some of his best acting in this film and his emotional breakdown at the finale is compelling.

This movie makes me nostalgic for a kind of action movie they just don't make anymore. I like movies where the hero is always just barely one step ahead of his antagonists. The music is booming and the action is just as bold and hardcore.

Still, I hope they never remake this. It would be too slick and I think this story's power would be diminished by modern pyrotechnics. This is the perfect film for 1982 and it should stay there.

Rambo marathon preview: First impressions before 'First Blood'

For no apparent reason my darling girlfriend and I have decided to spend our 1-year anniversary weekend watching all the Rambo movies marathon style. Are we looking to torture ourselves? Hardly.

Here's the thing: I am an unabashed Sylvester Stallone fan. I understand that a lot of (ok most) of his movies are silly and/or stupid. He comes off as ridiculously vain and for much of his career he seems to have put far more effort into maintaining his physique than his acting or writing.

That said, he's one of my all-time favorite action stars. And, when he wants to be (like in most of the Rocky films and Cop Land) he can be a terrific, unbelievably likable actor.

He's far more relatable than Schwarzenegger, not as smug as Bruce Willis and in his best roles he has a great sense of humor about himself.

I think that's why (at least in the past) I have never warmed up to the Rambo films. The character is so humorless and stoic -- and not in a compelling, Batman sort of way.

My Netflix queue

In addition to that, the movies' politics seemed naive at best and reprehensibly reactionary at worst. They seem to be a part of the Reagan era zeitgeist in which Vietnam is re-imagined as a scenario in which Americans were somehow victims and the soldiers were prevented from "finishing the job" by bureaucrats in Washington.

The villains were generic "ethnics"-- not really Vietnamese but just "other". But that's what the series became. It didn't start out that way.

The first film is definitely smaller scale, and so arguably it will likely play better for me. I saw it once, and the blockbuster First Blood: Part II years ago. I've never seen Rambo III and the last, recent reboot, Rambo, impressed me just for the pure audacity of the body count it racked up even if it was somewhat lacking in the character department.

I guess that's why the Rambo movies do appeal to me. I, like any immature boy, enjoy the explosions, the violence and the sheer unapologetic brutality of the franchise. These movies shoot first and ask questions later and sometimes we need that kind of big dumb fun.

Stallone is still desperately trying to cling to his former glory. With the exception of The Expendables movies, which are pretty damn entertaining, his appeal seems to really be slipping. He's certainly still a phenomenal physical specimen even as he approaches 70, but I genuinely wonder if he will ever embrace his age and become the character actor I think he really was born to be.

I have high hopes for Creed, where he will revisit his most iconic (and best) character, Rocky Balboa, but this time in the role of trainer -- he'll be managing the son of his old foe/friend Apollo Creed, who will be played by the excellent Michael B. Jordan. It's going to be conceived and directed by Ryan Coogler, who made one of last year's best films, Fruitvale Station, and it'll be a more down to earth role for Stallone instead of larger-than-life.

Still, I intend to sit back and enjoy the inflated, muscle-bound Stallone of his '80s heyday, as he has become something of an affectionate relic of a bygone age that we can now look back on fondly since we no longer have to live through its excesses.