Sunday, April 15, 2018

Silence is Golden: John Krasinski’s “A Quiet Place” is a Tension-Soaked Masterpiece


If you can learn anything from “A Quiet Place” it’s that getting pregnant in a monster-riddled, post-apocalyptic world is just a flat-out terrible idea. But I guess sometimes you just can’t help yourself. An attractive, but weathered young couple must protect themselves and their young kids from terrifying creatures that prey on anything that makes noise. The couple is played by real-life crouple John Krasinski and Emily Blunt. The gorgeous pair is a direct contrast to the ugly landscape their characters are now living in. And the monsters are extremely scary. In fact, “A Quiet Place” completely drips with dread from beginning to end, taking the viewer on a roller coaster thrill ride that includes scene after scene of almost unbearable tension. It’s a remarkable genre turn for director/star John Krasinski and a complete detour from his charming work on “The Office.” Michael Scott would absolutely love this flick.

“A Quiet Place” wisely doesn’t spend much time on exposition. Anything that’s important is told through the dialogue (most of which is spoken through sign language). The script from newcomers Bryan Woods & Scott Beck (and Krasinski) drops the viewer into a not-too-distant future in which giant creatures hunt by sound forcing people to live completely silently. Krasinski and Blunt are Lee and Evelyn and they’ve got a routine. They walk around barefoot, walk outside on trails of sand, use giant lettuce leafs for plates, and use felt pieces when playing Monopoly. They’ve got young children to look after including Marcus (Noah Jupe) and Regan (Millicent Simmonds) who is deaf. The family mostly communicates through sign language. Which means for a majority of the time, you’re essentially watching a silent film. But they’re human after all and accidents happen. And that’s when THEY show up. The nightmare-inducing monsters are brought to life through fantastic special effects.

Krasinski directs with an assured hand. It’s not his first time at the rodeo, having directed a couple other small features and a few episodes of “The Office” but he’s never made anything quite like “A Quiet Place.” Sure it shares similarities with other films in the genre (it’s sort of feels like “The Road” meets “Jurassic Park”) but the film doesn’t feel like anything you’ve seen before. The film is a masterclass in genre filmmaking. The sound design is impeccable. Just try snacking on popcorn or nachos while watching this flick, I dare you. The silence is practically deafening until the roars of vicious creatures fill the auditorium. And the music. Marco Beltrami’s monster mash score is brilliantly used and creates excruciating tension. The family has all relatively smart, resourceful people, but at one point all hell breaks loose as they must battle obstacle after obstacle as their home becomes a target of the menacing monsters. Don’t forget to breathe.

“A Quiet Place” is easily a new masterclass in horror filmmaking. It’s a tense thriller that hits all the right notes and has fun playing with your senses. The small cast is uniformly excellent, with impressive child performances and two truly likable lead actors; Krasinski’s direction is impressive, especially the way he's able to build tension with silence and little dialogue. And as if that isn’t enough, there is a strong emotional undercurrent which resonates in a strong way. It’s a film that easily stands among the best of the genre including classics like “Alien,” “The Descent,” and “Jurassic Park.” You heard it here first.  GRADE: A


Sunday, April 01, 2018

Game On: Steven Spielberg’s “Ready Player One” is a Wild Ride Down Memory Lane


I was a whirlwind of emotions while watching “Ready Player One” but the main one I felt was relief. I was relieved Steven Spielberg, one of the most successful and entertaining directors in movie history, hasn’t lost his touch. I was beginning to worry. He’s made some very fine films in the past few years. But none of them were overwhelmingly fun. Even though I don’t hate his fourth attempt at an Indiana Jones movie, I’d say his last truly great action or adventure film is easily “War of the Worlds” and before that “Minority Report.” But that’s only two great, flat-out entertaining adventures in fifteen years. That’s not quite an impressive recent track record for one of the best directors in town. I’m ecstatic to report that “Ready Player One” is Spielberg’s most entertaining movie in over a decade and still shows that the brilliant septuagenarian hasn’t lost his magic touch for creating charming worlds, heart-stopping set pieces, and a fascinating sense of wonder. It’s Spielberg at his most Spielbergian.

Let’s be honest. Did anyone actually think that it was possible to get so emotionally invested in characters who spend a majority of a movie’s runtime in a virtual reality world? I mean what are the stakes of a video game really? The film does a tremendous job setting up the story and why I felt so connected to a world that was so obviously disconnected from each other. In “Ready Player One” it is 2045 and the world is a desolate place with slum-like major cities. Most people “escape” their harsh reality by slipping into the OASIS, a crazy powerful virtual reality world created by an eccentric Steve Jobs/Bill Gates guy named James Halliday (Mark Rylance). The guy has passed away and in true Willy Wonka form has hidden an “Easter egg” and the player who finds it will win complete control of the OASIS. If that plotline sounds sort of Goonies-ish you’re not crazy.

Our protagonist is teenager Wade Watts (Tye Sheriden). He lives in the slums of Columbus, Ohio and teams up with a few others to help find the hidden egg. It turns out that Halliday programmed three challenges in the OASIS and which would in turn lead the winners closer to the hidden egg. Watts, spending most of his time controlling his OASIS avatar Parzival, meets Art3mis (Olivia Cooke) whose also trying to find the egg. They team up with a few others to find the egg before the evil Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) CEO of the Innovate Online Industries corporation and his enslaved minions can find it. Sure the plot is somewhat deceptively simple: good guys must find the treasure before the bad guys do, but it’s an incredibly tense and fun adventure.

Steven Spielberg has tried the CGI animation world with “The Adventures of Tintin” with mixed results. It just never felt like Spielberg adventure and the film was bogged down in the ‘uncanny valley’ where everything seems real but looks super fake at the same time. Spielberg sort of takes an “Avatar” approach with “Ready Player One.” Literally. The live action actors appear in animated form in the completely CGI virtual reality world and it really works. This world is colorful and hyper-kinetic. It contrasts perfectly with the dull harshness of the “real world.” Janusz Kaminski gives the film the look and feel of Spielberg’s other futuristic films like “AI” and “Minority Report.”

But really, I’m burying the lead. You know what’s so great about “Ready Player One?” It’s a love letter to all things nostalgia. We’re talking pop culture overload here. Movies, video games, you name it. Wade drives around in the OASIS in a DeLorean time machine for crying out loud. The first challenge involves a driving race and you could go cross-eyed trying to identify all the different recognizable vehicles. There’s even an entire scene that takes place inside an entirely different movie. It’s a jaw-dropping sequence and a major treat for cinema nerds. Sure the film caters to those of us who grew up in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but I’m pretty sure 95% of anyone excited for a Spielberg film is someone who lived through those decades. It’s not so much a movie about the love of nostalgia itself, it’s a movie about the love art and entertainment.

All this nerdy stuff is great and is a strength of the film, even if nostalgia seems to be on overload as of late, but the film is genuinely great from beginning to end. Composer Alan Silvestri, filling in for Spielberg’s faithful music man John Williams, adds another memorable score and even a few musical nods to “Back to the Future.” Even if half the movie is taking place in a reality that doesn’t really exist Spielberg found a way to make it emotionally engaging. The film has a tight script from Zak Penn and Ernest Cline (who wrote the book). And all the actors are fine in their roles. The film is a visual wonder with fantastic special effects, imaginative production design, and a sense of wonder that has been missing from the director’s recent oeuvre. Spielberg is back and better than ever.  GRADE: A


Sunday, March 25, 2018

Monsters, Stink: “Pacific Rim: Uprising” is a Bland and Generic Sequel


One can only take so many giant robots fighting each other. If you want to watch giant robots fighting each other you should definitely see “Pacific Rim: Uprising.” Don’t see it if you actually thought the 2013 film “Pacific Rim” was really great and you're expecting more of the same. This somewhat long-delayed sequel certainly isn’t worth the wait, and everything that worked the first time just doesn’t work this second time around. The fun, colorful look of Guillermo del Toro’s film are gone, replaced by drab hues; the exciting battles of monster vs machine are replaced with generic fights of machine vs machine; and some of the interesting characters we got to know and love are replaced by ill-advised character turns or replaced altogether. Which basically means that this is an incredibly inferior follow-up.


“Pacific Rim: Uprising” takes place about a decade after the events of the first film. If you remember, giant alien monsters were transporting themselves from another dimension through a rift in the Pacific Ocean. Humans built gigantic, two person piloted mechanic robots called “Jaegers” to fight the devastating creatures. And at the end of the film the rift was successfully blown to bits, making these giant “Kaijus” unable to attempt to destroy Earth. This time, the troubled son of Idris Elba’s character from the first film and former Jaeger pilot Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is arrested and forced to trade is time for returning to help train bland, new Jaeger pilots. A orpaned teenage girl named Amara (Cailee Spaeny) also figures into the plot but she feels somewhat shoehorned in. Rinko Kikuchi returns as Jake’s adopted sister who also works for Pan Pacific Defense Corps. The Jaeger trainees are forced to suit up when a corporation’s Jaeger drone program takes off and the drones begin to go rogue. Yawn. It’s Always Sunny’s Charlie Day shows up again as the comic relief but his character is used for a different purpose this time and it just doesn’t work. And playing the role of handsome, generic white guy is Scott Eastwood. Hollywood, stop trying to make Scott Eastwood happen. It’s not gonna happen. And finally Kaijus show up in the third act and yet again threaten to destroy the entire planet.

There was a something really great about “Pacific Rim” that worked. Maybe it was the lack of expectation? It was a highly stylized action film inspired by Japanese monster movies. Del Toro, who recently won an Oscar for directing “The Shape of Water” has a visual eye rarely seen in big budget blockbuster films. His movies look great and sort of… weird. Everything is “normalized” in “Pacific Rim: Uprising” thanks Steven S. DeKnight who makes his directorial debut. The cinematography is fine but unremarkable. There’s not real distinct “look.” The performances from the admittedly diverse cast are fine for a genre film but the characters are unmemorable. Even the music score isn’t all that catchy until Ramin Djawadi’s theme from the first film finally kicks in at one point. The final battle scene is well staged and somewhat exciting, but everything leading up to it is hardly remarkable.

You know what? “Pacific Rim: Uprising” is fine. There will be people who really enjoy. That’s fine. Let them have a good time. But this film feels very generic compared to the first film and in an age where the blockbuster film is in a new renaissance, “Pacific Rim: Uprising” feels like any other “Transformer” sequel. Bummer.  GRADE: C

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Just One of the Gays: 10 Things I Love About “Love, Simon”




The equally sweet and cheesy “Love, Simon” is not only influenced by 80s and 90s teen films but it’s actually three great films in one. One is a story about a teenager struggling with coming out of the closet. One is a romantic comedy about blossoming teen love that feels universal. And one is actually a pretty fun mystery. Here are ten things I don’t hate about “Love, Simon.”

A coming of age story from a new perspective. “Love Simon” follows a teenager named Simon who seemingly has the perfect life (read: huge house, car, hot parents) But life isn’t always as perfect as it appears on the surface. Simon happens to struggle with a big secret. He’s gay and hasn’t told anyone. He begins a penpal-like relationship with a fellow student named “Blue” who comes out anonymously on their school’s blog site and Simon becomes obsessed with figuring out who this mystery guy is as he begins to fall for him.

A strong message about inclusion and representation in a mainstream Hollywood film. Sure there are small films like Brokeback Mountain and recent Oscar winner Call Me By Your Name that sometime breakout into the mainstream but they often are serious dramas with stories that end in either tragedy or heart break. “Love, Simon” thankfully has no such ending. The film isn’t political whatsoever; there’s no agenda, that’s not the point.

An impressive lead performance. All the performances here are truly great. However, Nick Robinson (somewhat channeling a young Matthew Broderick) who many probably recognize from “Jurassic World” gives a particularly impressive lead performance as the confused Simon. His struggles are palpable and the emotional roller coaster he invites us on is hard to forget.

The directing. The film is directed by Greg Berlanti. It’s a name few probably know but many will be familiar with. He’s responsible for the DC-universe on TV’s The CW. Yeah, he developed “Arrow” and “The Flash” and got his start writing for “Dawson’s Creek.” Berlanti’s film is bright and colorful and even if there’s nothing too flashy in how the film itself looks, he offers plenty of fun touches including a mid-film fantasy musical number that had be beaming from ear to ear. Sure “Love Simon” is a little sappy and cheesy at times, but what do you expect from the writers of “This is Us.”

The writing. That’s right, the film was written by Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker who work on the delightfully soapy hit NBC drama. This is easily the type of film that could have wound up as a made-for-tv event but the fact that it got green-lit for the big screen is almost miraculous. The script is witty and offers up a fun mystery in regards to Simon’s quest to figure out who “Blue” is. The screenwriters obviously had a strong foundation as the often comedic film is based on Becky Albertalli’s award winning young adult novel “Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda.”

Moviedom’s nicest, coolest, and most understanding parents. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel play power couple/Simon’s parents and even if they’re not necessarily given all that much to do they each have their moment to truly shine. After Simon’s coming out each parent has a really sweet moment with their teenage son. Bring tissues.

The best friends. Thankfully the casting directors were able to find actors who actually looked, sounded, and acted like teenagers. Robinson is 22 sure but he looks young. Simon’s friends are all likable, appealing young actors and you feel like you’re watching real people. Of course the film isn’t afraid to have these people do unlikable things that have important effects on the plot which keeps things interesting.

A fun soundtrack. Besides the film’s subplot involving a school production of “Cabaret,” the film is loaded with great (mostly modern) tunes, most of which come from the band “Bleachers.” The songs are fun and recognizable and the movie even throws in a few classics into the mix. Which means Rob Simonsen’s fantastic, electronic score fits perfectly with the 80s teen movie aesthetic the filmmakers were going for. Which brings me to…

Nostalgia. Nostalgia. Nostalgia. Teen movies were a big deal back in the day thanks to John Hughes and all the other filmmakers inspired by him. All of those films are great, but you’d never see a gay character portrayed in such a non-stereotypical/offensive way let alone in a story from their perspective. The film really feels more like the teen movie genre’s 90s counterpart that featured everything from “Clueless” to “Ten Things I Hate About You” and “Never Been Kissed” all the way up to the more recent “Easy A.” This one just so happens to be about a lead male character who isn’t into girls. Which is why anyone who was either a) ever a teenager or b) ever enjoyed movies about teenagers should find “Love, Simon” rather enjoyable.

Teen movie cliches. Yes they exist. I’m talking about the goofy comic relief vice-principle (Tony Hale) who tries too hard to relate to his students (Natasha Rothwell). The pissed-off teacher who tells it like it is. And most ridiculous of all, the sheer amount of time that students in these movies have in the morning before class. Simon is able blow off breakfast with his already awake and showered family, pick up three of his friends, stop for iced coffee, find a parking space right in front of the building, and get to class on time. Right.


If those aren’t good enough reasons to see “Love, Simon” I don’t know what are. GRADE: A-


Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Maul in the Family: “The Strangers: Prey at Night” Offers Some Nostalgic Slasher Fun But Not Much Else


Wow these guys REALLY want to find Tamara huh? “The Strangers: Prey at Night” conjures mixed feelings. The horror nerd inside me wants to declare it a slasher-tastic, raucous good time. While the snobby film critic in me wants to complain about the many reasons why it’s a pretty terrible film. It is a pretty terrible film. But you know what? It’s sort of fun… It’s “fun” in a way that the superior original is not. The 2008 film “The Strangers” was nihilistic, depressing, but utterly terrifying. The film brimmed with suspense and tension. It was like “Halloween” turned up to an eleven. “Halloween” never offered much hope, but at least the main protagonist survived. There’s no such reassurance in “The Strangers.” The film’s long delayed sequel “The Strangers: Prey at Night” is way less cynical and is even arguably amusing in a way the original just wasn’t; but it really lacks the unbearable tension that made the first film so powerful. The 2008 film functions as a gritty 70s torture drama with no real hope or catharsis; while the belated sequel finds pleasure in an 80s chase and slash aesthetic in which the audience is practically encouraged to groan, shout, and cheer at the appropriate moments. At least the enthusiastic audience members did when I saw it.

Let’s get the negatives out of the way so we can get to the good stuff. The acting. No one is winning an Oscar for a slasher film let’s be honest. The performances don’t need to be transcendent; they just need to be passable. Are they passable here? Barely. Christina Hendricks (“Mad Men”) and Martin Henderson (“The Ring”) are the parents of the troubled Kinsey (Bailee Madison) who’s being sent away to boarding school. You can tell she’s rebellious because she wears a Ramones shirt and smokes cigarettes; I didn’t buy it. Then there’s her jock-geek older brother Luke (Lewis Pullman). Madison feels like she was plucked from the Disney Channel casting pool and it shows; she doesn’t quite have the chops to pull off Final Girl duties. That’s a bummer. Pullman is likable. It’s probably because he’s Bill Pullman’s son. Hendricks and Henderson are serviceable as the disposable parents but they’re frankly not given much to do. They’re all we have to root for which is kind of sad really. Then there’s the three masked maniacs who spend a late night stalking and killing off this dysfunctional family as the clan settles into an off-season mobile home park.

There’s no plot. Here’s a family. Here are the killers. The killers want to murder the family. That’s pretty much all we’re given. And that’s fine because we know this ain’t Shakespeare. It works in the original film because what the film lacked in plot or character development was made up with tremendous suspense and dread. It was quite effective. There’s not quite as much tension here but you can tell director Johannes Roberts (who also made last year’s disappointing shark flick “47 Meters Down”) is trying to accomplish. There is certainly a strong sense of mood and 70s/80s nostalgia flowing through the film’s brief 85 minute runtime. The film is loaded with wide shots and zooms with the killers creepily lingering in the corners of the frame. Nods to everything from John Carpenter, Steven King, and even a bit of Texas Chain Saw Massacre are nice. The film has a fun retro soundtrack featuring a fun electronic score from Adrian Johnston. Roberts obviously had a vision; from the retro title card to the 80s pop tunes blaring on the soundtrack (he initially wanted to score the entire film with 80s songs) and the fun camerawork. The film however looks and feels somewhat cheap, as if it was all rushed into production.

For those of us awaiting the return of the three masked strangers there’s very little connective tissue from this film to its 2008 counterpart. The first film was a disturbing home invasion thriller; this second entry expands it slightly and feels more like a traditional chase and slasher flick. The fun retro-vibe is really appealing though I don’t know if the film works as well as the filmmakers think it does. To be honest, I’m torn. The film is somewhat shoddy and the characters are pretty bland and the actors don’t help much and the Final Girl is completely unworthy. But there are so many fun moments in the ridiculous third act that annoyed the critic in me but delighted the horror nerd in me. It’s certainly a must-see for those horror fanatics who have been waiting an entire decade for the triumphant return of Dollface, Pin-Up Girl, and the Man in the Mask. It’s not the sequel I was necessarily expecting but that’s not always such a bad thing.  GRADE: B-


Monday, March 05, 2018

Good Grief: “Wake” is a Smart and Observant Dramedy


Is there anything more awkward in life than death? Probably not. In the short film “Wake” death sets the scene as a young woman returns to her hometown for the funeral of her estranged best friend. Taking a cue from observant films about death in the presence of life such as “Garden State” and “The Big Chill” the film finds itself dealing with grief in a really keen way. A short film doesn’t always give filmmakers much time for truly in-depth character development but “Wake” makes great use of its 25 minutes. Even for its low budget the film features standout performances from its unknown cast and some really funny humor that smartly breaks much of the dramatic tension. The film really gets human nature and I found myself intoxicated by these people and their story.

“Wake” follows a young professional woman named Michelle. She’s played very well by Liz Noth who has the likable charm and charisma of a younger Natalie Portman. Michelle returns to her small hometown to attend the funeral of her friend Jess. We’ve never met Jess and we never do. And initially all we know is that these two friends had previously had a falling out and Michelle can’t even bring herself to actually show up at the wake, stopping short of Jess’ house and deciding to return to her vehicle. Later that evening, she attends a party being thrown by another former classmate and other 20-something friends who are celebrating Jess’ life. And here is where things begin to get awkward, tense, and surprisingly funny. We slowly learn more about the people that used to be in Michelle’s life and how she and Jess came to be estranged.

The film’s attentive script from writer and co-star Jake Smith is tight and true-to-life. One can easily project their own life and experiences on these characters and situation. And Darin Guerrasio, who also shows up in a small role, directs with an assured hand. The two balance serious drama and humor rather well and slowly peel back the layers on these characters as more and more is revealed about them and their past. After all, in life nobody’s perfect.

The small, intimate film looks pretty nice. With a budget of $12,000 according to IMDb, the production value impresses. There’s nothing particularly flashy about the camerawork but that’s not necessary; the film is a reflection of the human experience and it beautifully captures it simply with truth and grace. “Wake,” with its bouts of perfectly timed humor, moments of quiet sadness, and some impressive burgeoning talent, reflects an undeniable truth about life whether you’re a millennial or not: that grief comes with the human experience and everyone deals with it in different ways.  GRADE: A-

“Wake” has screened at several film festivals including the Golden Door International Film Festival and the Big Apple Film Festival and will be showing at the Pasadena International Film Festival (March 7-15th) and the New Haven International Film Festival in May.  

Wake (Short Film) - Official Trailer from Jake The Myth Smith on Vimeo.

Friday, March 02, 2018

Oscar Forecast: “Three Billboards” with a Chance of Everything Else. Oy Vey.

Updated: Wow. So The Shape of Water actually pulled it off. It won Best Picture without a Best Cast SAG nomination. The only film to do that since Braveheart. BP and Director did NOT end up splitting. The film walked away with 4 total wins (Picture, Director, Score, & Production Design). Get Out did pull off a win for Jordan Peele’s script which was probably my favorite win of the evening. The acting wins went to their respective front runners and otherwise there weren’t really any surprises. The show was really fun and even if I only got 16 out of 24 correct I’m still proud to have correctly predicted the Academy, yet again, refused to award the Planet of the Apes series for their jaw dropping effects work. 



I like stats. Stats usually work. But stats are sometimes meant to be broken. And it’s gonna happen this year. Every single best picture nominee will break a stat if it wins Best Picture. I remember last year when I was losing sleep over my Oscar picks and that’s when La La Land was the unabashed frontrunner. Nothing could stop it. Not even an envelope mix-up. Oh wait. RIGHT! MOONLIGHT WON! What a crazy surprise that was huh? I was so sure nothing could upset La La Land last year (even though it didn’t have a SAG CAST nomination), and now there are about FIVE films that could possibly take best picture and I can’t for the life of me figure out which one it’s gonna be. At least I know what definitely won’t win. But that’s not helping much. And like I said, each film has something working against it. Three Billboards doesn’t have a directing nod. Only four films in Academy history have won BP without a directing nom. The Shape of Water doesn’t have a SAG cast nomination. Only ONE film in 25 years has won BP without a SAG Cast nomination (it was Braveheart). Niether Get Out nor Lady Bird have an editing nomination nor any other “tech” nods. Only one film has won BP without an editing nomination since 1980 (it was Birdman). Dunkirk also doesn’t have a SAG Cast nod, nor writing or acting nominations (it’s been 85 years since a film won without Writing and Acting  nominations). The other films are happy to be nominated. One of those stats is going bye-bye, but which one? Let’s jump in, shall we?


Best Picture

Who Will Win: “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri” Where do I even begin? Except that I honestly have no clue what’s gonna win best picture. I’ve never been so unsure.  In three of the last four years Picture and Director have split. And in those three incidents I have incorrectly predicted Best Picture because I’ve always gone with whoever was going to win Best Director. Correctly predicting splits are difficult. This year I’m predicting Guillermo del Toro for Director for The Shape of Water, so technically Shape of Water should have the most obvious shot. But not so fast. In the those three years where I’ve been wrong, I’ve incorrectly predicted a film that was also snubbed in the Best Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. There’s a disturbingly accurate correlation between the SAG award nominees and what ends up winning the Best Picture Oscar. And guess what? The Shape of Water wasn’t nominated there so you know what? I REFUSE TO PREDICT IT. I’m going with “Three Billboards” because it FEELS like a Best Picture winner even if it will have a tough time making it through the Academy’s annoyingly perplexing preferential ballot (this ballot, in which members rank their choices, functions to award a consensus pick, in other words, what film does a majority of the Academy like overall. As opposed to just circling a winner, in which case Three Billboards or Shape of Water would win easily. So basically, with ten potential nominees the Academy things that a film winning with less than 20% of the Academy’s vote is unfair). If not “Three Billboards” I’d say “Get Out” has a slight chance (remember when the last and only horror film to win Best Picture was The Silence of the Lambs? That film came out in February just like Get Out. Coincidence?) but I’m still not buying it as an actual winner. Same with “Lady Bird.” Heck, even “Dunkirk” could win here since it felt like an obvious choice since its summer release. So basically what I’m saying here is there are 5 strong possibilities for Best Picture, while four films (Call Me By Your Name, The Post, Phantom Thread, and Darkest Hour) have no real shot. OK I’m done with you Best Picture, you’re giving me anxiety.

Who Should Win: “Get Out.” It’s a zeitgeist film. A surprise hit. It SAYS something and entertains all at once. It feels like the movie of the moment.  Having said that, I’d truly be happy if any of the five frontrunners won.

Should Have Been Nominated: “The Big Sick” My favorite film of the year had a shot, but it wasn’t meant to be.



Best Director

Will Win: Guillermo del Toro, “The Shape of Water.” He won the DGA. It’s hard to bet against history. Anyone else would be a surprise at this point.

Should Win: Christopher Nolan, “Dunkirk.” What does this guy have to do to win a freaking Oscar already?

Should Have Been Nominated: Martin McDonagh, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” There was no excuse for leaving his name off the list. None.



Best Actor

Will Win: Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour.” The easiest of the four acting races to call this year (in a year where all four awards seem to be locked up anyways). He’s a respected actor who’s never won in a role that checks off all the traditional Academy boxes. Poor Timothee Chalamet will have other chances.

Should Win: Timothee Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name.” Chalamet’s performance is way subtler than what Oldman is doing but it’s way more impressive considering how young the kid is. What is he like 12?

Should Have Been Nominated: James Franco, “The Disaster Artist.” Even if he’s a tool, his performance was impressive and fun.



Best Actress

Will Win: Frances Mc Dormand, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” If Frances AND Three Billboards wins, it’ll be the first film since Million Dollar Baby that the Best Actress winner comes from the Best Picture. I’m pretty sure Frances has a second win the bag at this point. If anyone spoils I guess it’s Saoirse Ronan but that’s unlikely.

Should Win: Frances Mc Dormand, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” I thought everyone here was pretty great.

Should Have Been Nominated: Brooklyn Prince, “The Florida Project.” One of the more impressive child performances in quite some time.



Best Supporting Actor

Will Win: Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” I’m pretty sure Rockwell is a lock. Willem Dafoe was the frontrunner until Rockwell started actually winning everything. Surprises happen in this category so don’t get too cocky Rockwell. Just ask Stallone. It helps that Rockwell is in a widely seen movie and Dafoe is the solo nomination for his film.

Should Win: Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.”  That fact that Rockwell plays such a hateful character speaks volumes to how good his performance really is. No one said this was an easy film to like.

Should Have Been Nominated: Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name.” Best. Monologue. Ever.



Best Supporting Actress

Will Win: Allison Janney, “I, Tonya.”  Arguably the least sure thing of the acting races this year, though she’s still pretty much locked in at this point. Laurie Metcalf could pull this off, but Janney’s performance is showier while Metcalf’s is subtler. Though tell that to Mark Rylance.

Should Win: Allison Janney, “I, Tonya.”  Janney plays such an evil bitch; it has to go down as one of Oscar’s best villainous roles.

Should Have Been Nominated: Holly Hunter, “The Big Sick.” This one still stings.



And the rest:



Best Adapted Screenplay 
Will Win: “Call Me By Your Name.” The 89 year-old James Ivory is poised to win his first Oscar after many former times at bat. Probably one of the sure things of the night, but tell that to Jason Reitman for “Up in the Air” who won every single Adapted Screenplay award that year except the Oscar.



Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” If this category was called Most Original Screenplay, then sure Get Out would be a shoo-in. This is really a race to watch as pretty much any of the nominees could win, with the probable exception being “The Big Sick.” I’m pretty certain that if Three Billboards wins this it’s going all the way. The last Best Picture winner to not win for its Screenplay was “The Artist” which didn’t have dialogue. Also, watch for Get Out, a legitimate threat. It really has to win here if it’s going all the way. (Though it could still win here and literally anything could win BP).



Best Animated Feature Film
Will Win: “Coco.” It’s Pixar. Good Pixar. Moving on.



Best Cinematography
Will Win: “Blade Runner 2049.” Could this really be Roger Deakins’ year? I guess so?? There’s something that’s telling me that “Dunkirk’s” thrilling IMAX footage or love of “The Shape of Water” might actually take this. This is a category I’m excited about.



Best Costume Design
Will Win: “Phantom Thread.” This is probably Phantom Thread’s only real shot at a win (with a possibility of Best Score, but we’ll get to that). It’s interesting to note that the last nine winners of this award have also at least been nominated for Best Production Design (previously Art Direction). There’s sometimes a correlation between the two but I think Phantom Thread will still pull it off.  There’s a chance that something like Beauty and the Beast could win here but I don’t know that the film is liked or respected enough (though that didn’t stop the borderline garish “Alice in Wonderland” from winning 2 Oscars).



Best Documentary - Feature
Will Win: “Faces Places.” The frontrunner in this category, “Jane,” isn’t even nominated which makes things a little fuzzy. Unless some late-breaking news about the director of “Last Men in Aleppo” being denied a visa to attend the Oscars got enough people to get riled up, I think 89 year old documentarian Agnes Varda (the oldest nominee ever) will probably win her first competitive Oscar (She was just honored with an honorary award in the fall). “Icarus” has the power of Netflix behind it, and its  Russian doping storyline is certainly timely. Anything can happen here.



Best Documentary - Short Subject
Will Win: “Edith+Eddie.” I’m torn between this depressing tale of really old people in love and “Heroin(e)” because it’s readily available on Netflix. These shorts categories are always tough to call since so few members actually watch them and vote. I think people will respond to “Heaving is a Traffic Jam on the 405” but I found the film rather distancing. For what it’s worth, there is no film about the Holocaust this time.



Best Film Editing
Will Win: “Baby Driver.” This category is always ripe for an upset. There are certain types of films that usually win here, whether it’s a war film (like last year’s “Hacksaw Ridge”) or a frenetic action film (like “The Borne Ultimatum”). The Academy also isn’t afraid to award this film to a non-Best Picture nominee though the last five winners were up for the night’s big prize. I’m going out on a limb for “Baby Driver” which recently won at BAFTA (which correctly predicted the last two most recent surprise winners). While Dunkirk feels like the obvious pick, I’m worried that the film’s fragmented editing style is more confusing to Academy members than showy.



Best Foreign Language Film
Will Win: “A Fantastic Woman.” The Academy made a political statement with last year’s winner. A win for “A Fantastic Woman” would be the first win for Chile. But watch out for “The Square” which is the other most well-known of the nominees.



Best Makeup & Hairstyling
Will Win: “Darkest Hour.”
 Last year everyone was surprised that a film as horrendous as “Suicide Squad” could actually win an Academy Award no matter how good the particular craft was. This time it will easily go to “Darkest Hour” which completely transformed Gary Oldman into Winston Churchill. I’d be shocked if either of the other two won here.



Best Original Score
Will Win: “The Shape of Water.” The Academy likes to reward newcomers in this category which is why “Phantom Thread” feels like a possible spoiler. The Academy also loves a good string score (tell that to Thomas Newman who lost for his amazing American Beauty score to The Red Violin). I think previous winner Alexandre Desplat is poised for his second trip to the podium for his memorable work in “The Shape of Water” though I found that the music in “Dunkirk” is what really drove much of the dialogue-less film – and the Academy may recognize that as well.



Best Original Song
Will Win: This is Me, “The Greatest Showman.” It’s not impossible for a movie to win on its only nomination here. “Spectre” pulled off somewhat of a shock win here two years ago. I think the surprise popularity of “The Greatest Showman” soundtrack will prevail against the plot-significant  and memorable Remember Me from “Coco.”  If This is Me wins, its writers Pasek & Paul will be the Tom Hanks of song composers with back-to-back wins.



Best Production Design
Will Win: “The Shape of Water.” I think the flooded room sequence is enough to get Academy members to vote for “The Shape of Water” even if that was more of a visual effect. Sometimes the Academy confuses Producting Design with Production Value after all (I know, I know, no one said they’re the smartest people in the world). I guess the futuristic sets of “Blade Runner 2049” could pull off a win here, but it is “Beauty and the Beast” and its relevant Costume Design nomination we all must watch out for.



Best Short Film – Animated
Will Win: “Garden Party.”
Most pundits seem to be picking Kobe Bryant’s cute but short and self-indulgent “Dear Basketball” but I’m going with the dark-themed, lifelike animated frogs. Pixar’s in the mix with “Lou” but I don’t think it’s strong enough to prevail.



Best Short Film – Live Action
Will Win: “Dekalb Elementary.”
A timely film about a school shooter. “The Eleven O’Clock” is the only comedy in the group which gives it an edge.



Best Sound Editing
Will Win: “Dunkirk.” They went sci-fi last year with “Arrival” so I’m thinking they’ll check off the war film this time.



Best Sound Mixing
Will Win: “Dunkirk.” Sometimes these sound categories are split between two films and sometimes they’re given to the same film. Usually because many members don’t even know the difference. If there’s a spoiler look to either “Blade Runner 2049” or even “Baby Driver” whose sound design was integral to the film’s success and even figured into the plot.



Best Visual Effects
Will Win: “Blade Runner 2049.” The Academy has been shamefully neglectful of the new Planet of the Apes series. The effects in these films are jaw-dropping and have improved with each entry. It’s mind-boggling that they’ve never been rewarded. But if they didn’t before I don’t think they will now (though it COULD happen as many are predicting). This award tends to go to a Best Picture nominee when there is one (there isn’t this year) and “Blade Runner 2049” feels the most like a Best Pic nominee with 5 nods total. Besides, the film recently won at the BAFTAs as well.