Friday, July 05, 2019

Here Comes the Sun: The Disturbing and Gorgeous “Midsommar” is a Cult Above the Rest

Halfway through Ari Aster’s “Hereditary” I thought I’d never be able to watch it again. I found it that disturbing, troubling, and creepy. As it turns out, it’s a hell of a horror film and has tremendous replay value once you know its secrets. Featuring an Oscar-worthy Toni Collette, it marked one of the most auspicious horror film debuts in quite some time. And now we have “Midsommar,” Aster’s incredible followup. Folks, he’s two for two. This sun-drenched ode to folk horror films like “The Wicker Man” is a distressing piece of art that, even at a runtime of 147 minutes, flies by because it gets its hooks in you in the film’s shocking opening sequence and never lets go. Essentially a drama about the dissolution of a relationship, “Midsommar” offers gorgeous, colorful cinematography, strong performances, and a story that is creepy and gross because you know exactly where it’s going and it’s one scary trip.



The film begins with a terrible tragedy during the cold winter months which easily establishes director Ari Aster as a grief horror master. Our heroine Dani (Florence Pugh) is the one dealing with shocking events that involve some immediate family members which is not helping her already strained relationship with her emotionally distant boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor). To help get her mind off things, he reluctantly invites her along with his male friends Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter) to visit Sweden. They have plans to do one of worst-sounding things in horror movie history. They’re going with their Swedish friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) to visit the Swedish commune his grew up on to witness a nine day long summer festival that only occurs every 90 days. If that doesn’t scream murderous cult I don’t know what does.



The rest of the film is a downward spiral of drug hallucinations (oh college kids!) and more and more disturbing behavior as these young people realize that the nice pale people even with their flowing white frocks and sunny, friendly dispositions are actually pretty darn insane. None of this is actually surprising, as the walls of the building in which our American heroes are bunking actually depict a lot of the crazy activities the audience will witness from these Swedish meatballs. Of course the less you know about the film going into it the more “fun” it’ll all be. But prepare yourself from some really shocking imagery whether it be graphic violence or graphic sexuality.



To be fair, “Midsommar” is certainly not a film for everyone. If you could handle “Hereditary” you could easily handle this. Think of “Midsommar” as brighter-looking version of “Hereditary” but without all the supernatural stuff. All great horror films have a centered piece of drama in which to hang the horror elements on and both of these brilliant films are the epitome of that. Aster has created yet another beautiful, trippy film set in a place where it never gets dark which means there’s never anywhere to hid. The film will not shock you with jump scares, but will slowly try to make you go insane, and what is scarier or more fun than that?  GRADE: A

Thursday, July 04, 2019

Marvel’s European Vacation: “Spider-Man Far From Home” is a Humorous, Emotional Joy

“Spider-Man: Far From Home” is two movies in one. It's a sequel to “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” which was Spider-Man's first solo outing within the MCU. But it also functions as a sequel to “Avengers: Endgame.” And this is where it really shines. The film must deal with the borderline traumatic events that unfolded in the biggest and most consequential film in the MCU universe so far. Sure, coming off the heels of “Endgame” is a lot of heavy lifting, but the film and its makers are up for the challenge and they succeed admirably. "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is a funny and action-packed spectacle that also happens to be a fun trip around Europe. Offering a really fantastic sense of humor, a lot of heart, and charismatic performances from its stars, “Far From Home” is easily one of the best Spider-Man films of all time.

Perfectly timed for Independence Day in the United States, “Spider-Man: Far From Home” spends its time abroad and I can’t think of anything more opportune then getting out of this place. We learn a little more about life after the reverse snap, now referred to as “The Blip,” and how those who were erased from existence have not aged while five years has passed for everyone else. Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is still reeling from the death of Tony Stark but it’s time for a school trip to Europe. And what could possibly go wrong? While there, these monsters that take the shape of the elements (ie, water, fire) begin wrecking havoc and a mysterious caped crusader shows up to stop the terror. This guy is dubbed by the Italian press as “Mysterio.” Oh look it’s Jake Gyllanhaal! Welcome to the MCU Jake. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Agent Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) want to welcome this new hero to the world – as he’s actually from another of many multiverses, of which his version of Earth was destroyed. Though there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark, we’ll soon find out (and it's not their cheese).

“Spider-Man: Far From Home” continues the teen flick fun of “Homecoming” by focusing on a small group of Parker’s classmates thanks to Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers’ witty script. This includes his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) and his new girlfriend Betty Brant (Angourie Rice) who spend their entire European vacation being that annoying couple with matching outfits and terms of endearment. And then there’s MJ (Zendaya) who Peter longs for and she may even have some feelings in return. All of the teen drama is set against this increasing global threat and has Peter in a pickle… I mean where’s Iron Man when you need him. Luckily, Tony Stark’s loyal assistant Happy (Jon Faverau) is there as a sort of reluctant mentor to Peter and their scenes are extremely touching and effective. Not to mention a possible romance with Peter’s Aunt May (Maris Tomei).

This latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is another pop art comic masterpiece. It’s truly amazing how much sheer fun the film is and how emotional invested one can get in a film series that has been going strong for over ten years. Jon Watts’ film is a visual treat with fantastic action set pieces, a great score from Michael Giacchino, and solid performances from everyone involved. No one really knows where the MCU is going from this point, but it’ll be hard to top everything up to this point. I can’t wait.  GRADE: A

Monday, July 01, 2019

Hello, Dolly! The Jump Scares are in Full Force in “Annabelle Comes Home”

Talking and/or killer toys are having a bumper crop at American theaters this summer huh? “Toy Story 4” and “Child’s Play” both opened on the same day (major props to the “Child’s Play” marketing people by the way) and now we get the third installment of the Annabelle series which itself is a spinoff of the far superior fright flick “The Conjuring.” I greatly admire Warner Brothers’ Conjuring universe not only because it’s arguably better handled than their DC universe but there hasn’t been such a fun group of shared horror films since the days of the Universal Studios monsters. That being said, the “Annabelle” films pale in comparison to the main Conjuring films but this third entry is certainly a noble effort (as was the superior second installment “Annabelle: Creation”). What is essentially a single setting haunted house flick with things that go bump in the night, the film is fine entertainment for those seeking fun jump scares, but hardened horror fans with iron constitutions will find most of “Annabelle Comes Home” to be little more than silly smoke and mirrors that add very little to the genre; except for a handful of other fun possible Conjuring universe spin-offs. At the end of the day, I’m okay with that because there’s nothing particularly horrible about this entry, it’s just not overly outstanding.



The Warrens show up in “Annabelle Comes Home” and is set mostly in their home and that is certainly a bold and wise choice from the filmmakers. The presence of Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson easily elevates this otherwise generic haunted house movie. This is literally the fourth time that we’ve been made aware of the evil doll Annabelle and we finally get to see what happens when the Warrens place her in her permanent home in their creepy artifact room IN THEIR HOME. Of course during one weekend away from home, the Warrens’ hire a teenager to babysitt their young daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace). The sweet teen left in charge, Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman) hesitantly lets her friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) over and before they know it they’ve awoken Annabelle and all the other evil spirits locked away in the room in what is essentially a cabin in the woods storyline.



So basically what we have here is “The Conjuring” meets “The Evil Dead.” Which sounds fine on paper except that in this film I never really felt that these girls were in any real danger. I was pretty certain they would all end up fine. If you watch the first “Conjuring,” which is better written and features more fleshed out characterizations, film you never feel like that family is going to make it out alive. “Annabelle Comes Home” has a lot of boo/gotcha moments which is fine, but that’s really all it has. It has not real unique visual identity and I don’t even remember the music score. The young actors are fine but it was hard to get invested or care about them, especially Daniela who is the one who unwittingly unleashes the demons when all she could of done is just as Lorraine to contact her recently deceased close family member.



As a horror fan, and lifetime resident of Connecticut, I’m so thrilled that these films exist. These Conjuring universe films are fine – they’re all starting to feel and look the same – but I’m glad these films are around to scare the pants off of kids whose parents probably shouldn’t be bringing them to see them. Though these films aren’t loaded with profanity, violence, or sex which is extremely rare for an R rated horror film. It means the films care a stricter rating because they are just scary; of course your mileage may vary. As far as I’m concerned these films only exists to cleans the palate between the main Conjuring films and my appetite is certainly whetted. GRADE: B-

 

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Toy Gory: The “Child’s Play” Redo Proves to Be a Fun and Nasty Treat

The original “Child’s Play” from 1988 is a silly movie no doubt about it. In it, a serial killer passes his soul onto a doll as he lays dying. The doll ends up in the hands of a young boy, who insists his doll is actually alive and committing crimes – like murder. The film was a hit because a) dolls are creepy and b) ones that are alive are even creepier. A horror franchise was born as was a new boogeyman. But still, it was about a killer doll. At once a social commentary on the Cabbage Patch doll craze of the early 1980s and general commercialism, the original “Child’s Play” offered a silly premise that’s easy to buy into. The same can easily be said for its remake which satirizes our society’s obsession with the Internet of Things. Somehow, a killer Amazon Echo isn’t that visually interesting so a redesigned Chucky doll complete with WiFi and modern technology fits the bill. This time Chucky isn’t possessed by a killer, he’s a self-aware smart device that can learn and has no qualms about graphic violence. The doll becomes overly attached to his tween owner Andy so what we basically get is a weird horror hybrid of “Small Soldiers” and “Single White Female.” And I didn’t hate it.

A disgruntled employee in a toy factory in Vietnam is to blame for the events of the new “Child’s Play.” Buddi is an immensely popular line of high-tech smart dolls that can connect to various other devices made by a tech company called Kasdan. The guy disables one doll’s safety measures and other things that essentially make the toy capable of turning into a murderous psychopath. Chucky doesn’t have the actual personality of a real person which feels odd since that’s such a staple of the franchise (mostly due to Brad Dourif’s fantastically maniacal voice-work). For the first time Chucky is voiced - equally well - by Mark Hamill. Andy is portrayed as an older kid (Gabriel Bateman) who’s unique trait is that he has a hearing aid. His mom Karen is much less sympathetic in this version but Aubrey Plaza is fine in the role as a working class mom.

Karen works at a discount department store much like Walmart and is able to sneak home a slightly used Buddi doll for Andy, who isn’t initially all that impressed. But Andy and his mom are new to the area and he’s desperate for companionship – especially since Karen is dating an obnoxious loser who we can’t wait to see get killed. After the doll “imprints” on Andy – sort of like we see in Steven Spielberg’s “AI” – the kid takes a liking to his Buddi doll who can record audio, video, and connect to his phone, etc. After Chucky watches some “Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2” with Andy and his new [human] friends, the doll begins to see violence as something to laugh about. This is sort of where the fright factor of this new film begins to lose me. The fact that Chucky, even as a smart device, doesn’t actually know any better makes him instantly less scary. That isn’t to say the violent acts he does eventually commit aren’t fun to watch. Director Lars Klevberg certainly has a mean streak as he stages the death scenes with a sense of dread and grotesqueness.

The people Chucky goes after have wronged Andy in some way which makes the film feel a like a modern take on the psycho stalker thrillers of the early 90s. This is basically “Single White Female” with a robot doll. And I’ll take it. Tyler Burton Smith’s script is certainly wacky and the pacing and tone are a bit all over the place – at one point the movie strives to be like “It” with [less memorable] kids banding together to try and take down the monster but the idea is sort of lost and doesn’t really go anywhere. There’s even an entire sequence involving a severed head that’s been wrapped as a present that’s played entirely for laughs. The film is slick-looking and has decent practical effects, even if the Chucky doll design is pretty horrendous. And it’s not because it looks like a shell of the original design – it’s just an ugly freaking doll which makes it hard to believe people in this film would be obsessed with it. The last positive thing I’ll say is that composer Bear McCreary’s original score is completely dope as is an original song that will become an earworm if you let it.

In the end, this new “Child’s Play” sort of won me over. It’s not earth-shattering by any means but it’s not nearly as terrible as we all assumed it would be. The film is slick, nasty, and fun; and just as ridiculous as its 1988 counterpart. Does it need to exist? Not really. Especially since original screenwriter Don Mancini is still knees deep into continuing the original franchise. But those movies have taken some odd directions and it was about time someone steered the ship back into something more palatable.  GRADE: B

Sunday, June 02, 2019

The Bitch is Back: The Visually Stunning “Rocketman” Soars


“Rocketman” seems to be a bit of an anomaly in the music biopic movie genre. While the movie’s story follows the same beats of most movies in these genre from the recent “Bohemian Rhapsody” to “The Doors” to “Walk the Line” and “Ray,” “Rocketman” flips things around by turning the story of Elton John into a flashy musical in which characters break out into songs. Think “Across the Universe” if it was actually about The Beatles. The film features an uncannily good performance from its young star Taron Egerton who embodies the soul of Elton John (and even does his own singing). “Rocketman” has spectacular musical sequences even if it’s framed in a been-there-done that story of the price and dangers of fame and dealing with family members who don’t believe in you. But its message of tolerance and acceptance in a world that seems to be moving backwards and not forward is inspiring welcoming, and uplifting.

“Rocketman” begins where most music biopics end, the lead character winding up in rehab. Through flashbacks Elton John (Egerton) tell the story of his life. As a kid (born as Reggie Dwight) he was a young musical prodigy who had a natural talent for playing the piano. And no surprise his parents are assholes. His mother is played coldly by Bryce Dallas Howard and like most characters she plays you just wanna slap her across the face. But I digress. The childhood sequences in most films like this tend to be dull and boring. WE get it he or she was a musical genius at age 10. But at least this time we get flashy musical numbers set to the songs from the musician the movie is about. Who doesn’t love a musical sequence set on a suburban street with the song “The Bitch is Back?”

From there the film follows Reggie as he joins a band, begins collaborating on songs with a songwriter named Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), changes his name to Elton John, and discovers that he’s attracted to men. One of the film’s strongest elements is the lifelong friendship that forms between Elton and Bernie. Bernie accepts Elton’s homosexuality and they make beautiful music together. Eventually Elton begins a physical relationship with his manager John Reid (Richard Madden). The film is frank in its depiction of their relationship which is certainly new territory for a big budget music biopic released by a major studio. Of course, “Bohemian Rhapsody” did mostly the same stuff last year but was unfortunately much maligned.

Speaking of which, “Rocketman” is helmed by director Dexter Fletcher who helped steer “Bohemian Rhapsody’s” successful post-production process (which led to 4 Oscar wins) and certainly does wonders here too. On paper “Rocketman” is really a snooze of a script in regards to the story but screenwriter Lee Hall and Fletcher take something that’s rote and cliched and turn everything upside down by making it a flashy musical. The musical sequences are fantastic and make the film come alive. The music is really what makes you care about everything that’s going on in the film.

“Rocketman” feels like a really well done Broadway-to-film adaptation. There’s nothing particuarly groundbreaking or shocking about Elton John’s life as far as music biopics are concerned but Egerton is a revelation and uncanny as Elton, the musical sequences are exceptionally fun and high energy, and the film’s progressive messages will hopefully not fall on deaf ears. Fans of Elton’s music or musicals in general will certainly be in gay heaven and anyone else who stumbles into the theater by accident.  GRADE: A-

Maternal Sunshine of the Insane Mind: Octavia Spencer Makes “Ma” Worth Your Time


“Ma” is directed by the same guy who directed Octavia Spencer to an Oscar win for “The Help.” That would be Tate Taylor and he’s certainly not the most visually exciting filmmaker working today but he knows how to get great performances out of actors. The brilliant Ms. Spencer needs no help however and she finally marks her first real lead role with a perfect balance of weirdness and psychotic glee as the murderous Ma of the film’s title. “Ma” is an exploitation film that is elevated by the presence of great actors letting loose and realizing that doing trashy genre work is where the most fun roles are. It’s the teenage characters who don’t get to have nearly as much fun. The film feels like one of those creepy early 90s thrillers where a seemingly nice character turns out to be a wacko. Sign me up.

Produced by outstanding horror production company Blumhouse – who specializes in low budget films with smart scripts made by talented filmmakers - “Ma” is the type of film that could either be utter garbage or something special. I’d say it falls somewhere in-between. The film follows a teenage girl who moves with her mom from California to the Midwest. She befriends a small group of kids who enjoy spending their time trying to get booze and drugs. The straitlaced Maggie (Diana Silvers) isn’t about give up the chance to make friends so she plays along. The kids hang out in their friend Andy’s dad’s van outside a liquor store and try to get adults to buy them alcohol. There they come across a nice woman who’s walking a three legged dog. She initially says she’s not interested in buying them beer, but then figures why not be the cool adult for once? This seemingly sweet woman is Sue Anne (Spencer) and she just so happens to be batshit crazy. Of course the kids don’t know this yet. Sue Anne lets the kids come to her house and party in her basement since she’d rather them drink there rather than driving drunk. They even nickname her ‘Ma.’ The fact that Ma may have ulterior motives is another story...

It’s no surprise that Octavia is essentially doing her best Annie Wilkes. No one plays crazy quite like Kathy Bates, but Spencer is certainly up to the task. The character actress has basically been typecast as the mom or best friend - usually in a 1960s setting. Here she gets to be fully unleashed and it’s magical to watch. Nothing in Scotty Landes’ script is particularly original or groundbreaking; it’s essentially the groundwork for a plump, juicy role for a woman nearing middle age. And since Spencer is so great in a role that she’s never quite done before, it’s the teenagers who are somewhat bland and forgettable. They don’t really get to do much besides party and act like fools and eventually complain about how creepy and weird Ma is getting.

“Ma” takes its time building suspense, Spencer is fantastic, and the score from composer Gregory Tripi is great. This is essentially low budget trash that has found its way to the mainstream and I'm totally fine with that because Spencer has finally gotten a great lead role. I don’t think it transcends the genre and it’s not quite up the level of what Kathy Bates was able to accomplish in “Misery” but it’s schlocky, goofy fun with a delightful wicked streak – especially in the final act, though things don’t quite go as far as I expected but I sure enjoyed my time at Ma’s and witnessing her slowly become unhinged.  GRADE: B


Friday, May 24, 2019

Supergood: The Hilarious “Booksmart” Passes With Flying Colors


“Booksmart” is raunchy, progressive, and funny. What more could you want in a comedy? Olivia Wilde, making her feature film directorial debut, imbues the film with equal parts heart and weirdness that makes it standout among raunchy teen sex comedies. The movie follows two straight-laced best friends on the eve of their high school graduation. When they realize that even their wild troublemaker classmates also got into ivy league schools they figure it’s time to let loose a little. A chaotic night of debauchery coalesces into a series of wacky misadventures as they attempt to locate the wild party being thrown by a classmate. “Booksmart” doesn’t necessarily reinvent the genre but certainly takes a fresh approach with equal doses of heart and hilarity.

“Booksmart” is not unlike the 2007 teen comedy “Superbad” in which three teen boys attempt to fit in by attending a wild house party. They certainly share the same DNA: Jonah Hill’s younger sister Beanie Feldstein stars here as the straitlaced Molly. And her equally prudish best friend Amy is played by Kaitlyn Dever. Molly is headed to Yale in the fall, and Amy is heading to Botswana for the summer for volunteer work. Amy had previously come out as a lesbian and has a crush on a skater girl named Ryan. After being teasing in the bathroom, Molly confronts her tormentors and tells them she’s going places because she got into a good college. But they inform her that they’re also going to good schools. And suddenly Molly has a revelation. Those kids partied in high school but also got into college. She makes it her mission to spend the night before graduation making up for all the fun stuff she missed out on while in high school. Amy is reluctant but goes along with it. Hilarity ensues.

The raunchy coming-of-age teen comedy is nothing new, but “Booksmart” feels special. The two female leads are, first of all, extremely likable and funny. I’m sure we can thank divine intervention for getting these two actresses onscreen together. You sense the lifelong friendship these characters have and you root for them. The fact one of them is gay and doesn’t necessarily conform to stereotypes is a pretty wild concept for a mainstream film about teenagers. The entire film is filled with diverse types of people. And everyone has a moment to shine including a scene-stealing Billie Lourd as Amy and Molly’s bizarre classmate Gigi who happens to pop up throughout the entire film.

The film is also refreshing because for once, it’s a movie about teenage girls whose plot isn’t driven by their need to be with a boy. There are love interests involved, yes, but that’s not what drives these characters. The film’s script comes from the minds of four genius women: Susanna Fogel, Emily Halpern, Sarah Haskins, and Katie Silberman. Their script is zany, emotional, funny, and most of all relatable. Wilde’s direction is gorgeous. One sequence set underwater in a pool is beautifully shot (as is the rest of the film) and it’s when I had an epiphany: that in a perfect world a film like “Booksmart” would be getting serious Oscar attention come the fall.

There’s always one great indie comedy that comes out every summer as perfect counter-programming to the loud, CGI spectacles that usually fill the multiplex. This is that movie. “Booksmart” is fresh and fun and has set a new standard for coming-of-age teen comedies.  GRADE: A

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Snap Out of It: Is There Any Film More Satisfying Than “Avengers: Endgame?”


There has been nothing quite like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and there has never been anything quite like “Avengers: Endgame.” It’s no easy task weaving elements and characters from a series of 21 feature films that connect, overlap, and converge into a three hour mega-finale that is everything you want it to be and more. It’s – dare I say it – a perfect closing saga. Emotionally wrought with elements that have real consequences for whatever comes next. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll have the time of your life. “Avengers: Endgame” is a shockingly compelling finale and has everything to offer those of us who have spent the last ten years getting to know and love these characters.

Is there anything more daunting than reviewing a movie like “Endgame” without talking about what happens in it? I promise not to give anything important away but the best advice I can give you – even at this point in time with the film being in five days of release – that the best thing you can do is go see the film and not read ANYTHING about it. Nada. Zip. The less you know going in the more fun it will all be. To be fair, that’s true for any film but especially for this particularly exciting endeavor. I shall do my best with giving you a bit of set up without really telling you much.

First off, it goes without saying that seeing “Avengers: Infinity War” is a must before seeing “Endgame.” So spoilers for THAT film begin here. You’ll recall that at the end of the previous film evil tyrant Thanos (Josh Brolin) got his huge hands on all six infinity stones, snapped his fingers, and half of the universe’s population turned to dust including several important characters like, oh, Peter Parker, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, etc. It was a shocking and eerie ending and one doozie of a cliffhanger. The remaining Avengers – Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), among others- are left with their grief along with the rest of the world. It’s certainly a dour way to open a big budget blockbuster but this thing has certainly has enough emotion to spare. Tony and Nebula (Karen Gillan) are stuck in space. Of course they’re no better off than Scott Lang who we recall from the end of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is stuck in the Quantum Realm. So the question is… will the rest of these melancholy heroes be able to find Thanos and somehow reverse the damage he has caused? Isn’t that the question of the day…

Oh you wanna know more? Fat chance. Technical merits are outstanding in the usual Marvel way. The visual effects are top notch. Thanos, as in the previous film, is one of the most impressive CGI characters ever put on screen and Brolin is fantastic as a character who could have easily been one note and boring. All of the performances from this mindbogglingly impressive cast are outstanding. Downey Jr. is particularly moving here. We’ve seen this actor play this role countless times, to the point where you’re almost sick of him. Almost. He is utterly fantastic here. And that’s probably because the writing from Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who have written all the “Captain America” films and “Infinity War”) is exceptionally strong for this genre. Sure this is a “comic book movie” but it offers so much more. They are somehow able to juggle dozens and dozens of characters and not shortchange anyone. Alan Silvestri provides another powerful and moving score.

Does anyone really need to read a review of “Avengers: Endgame?” You know whether you’re going to see it. And you probably know whether you’re going to like it. It’s killing me that I can’t mention what 80s film this movie borrows heavily from and is even referenced a few times. But like I said the less you know… This movie was easily one of the most moving, sad, fun, action-packed, anxiety-inducing, cathartic times I’ve ever had at the movies. Big budget entertainment doesn’t get much better than this and this three hour epic goes by in a snap. It comes close to topping “The Winter Soldier.” Almost.  GRADE: A


Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Yawn of Justice: The Forgettable “Shazam!” is a ‘Big’ Disappointment


With so many great superhero movies out there (some might say too many, which is probably right) it seems like there’s room for a stinker here and there. And that would be “Shazam!” Which is a serious disappointment because “Shazam!” is unlike many of the other popular comic book films that have overcrowded the marketplace. It goes against type. I get it. It does its own thing. I get it. It’s about “the hero in all of us.” I get it. It just didn’t work for me. And here’s why.

The film lost me at wizard. My brain can’t compute the notion of wizards. They’re a bit too… magical. Now other comic book films have had fantastical elements and while my eyes and brain tend to glaze over when it comes to that fantasy stuff my brain couldn’t take any of it in “Shazam!” The film starts in the 1970s when a kid riding in the back of his dad’s car is strangely transported to a magical place where an ancient wizard is looking for a new chosen one who is pure of heart. Apparently this kid isn’t it. The film then jumps to present day Philadelphia where a troubled foster kid named Billy (Asher Angel) is looking for his birth mother. He’s place in a new group home with several other kids of varying age and race. He befriends another boy in the home named Freddy (Jack Dylan Glazer from “It”) who is disabled and a superhero enthusiast.

For some reason Billy gets zapped to the ancient realm where that wizard is still looking for the chose one. It’s this kid, and so now when he shouts “Shazam!” he turns into a jacked Zachery Levi with superpowers. At first the film’s colorful, playful tone suggests the story will be a take on “Big” but the “body switch” fun is quickly dropped in favor of superhero antics and a tedious plot about the grown up boy from the film’s opening (now played by Mark Strong) who has been obsessed with figuring out why he wasn’t the chosen one. A bunch of demons, all representing the seven deadly sins figure into his evilness and doesn’t make a lick of sense but here we are. Is it over yet?

Trying to figure out what’s the problem here is what’s bugging me. There’s nothing all that technically wrong with the film. It has decent effects but you can tell it’s a lower budged affair than the usual Marvel or DC fare. The film is certainly more of a comedy but none of the humor really works. The fact that most of the main characters are children makes the film feel slightly kiddie and yet the film has some extremely dark elements including a sequence in which the staff an entire office boardroom is brutally murdered. It’s easy to appreciate the generally lighter tone compared to DC and Warner Bros’ previous efforts. “Aquaman” lightened things up considerably and worked even if it functioned in a standard way. It was colorful, fun, and humorous. It never got bogged down in a serious tone set by “Man of Steel.” “Shazam!” takes place in the same world of those films but feels oddly out of place. If you’re bored you can even count the endless references to Batman and Superman.

Boring. That’s a good word to describe “Shazam!” I never got invested in Billy’s quest to find his mother. I didn’t care about his foster siblings or his foster parents. Maybe the film was poorly cast? The writing isn’t all that amazing either with a pretty dull script from Henry Gayden. Director David F. Sandberg who comes from the horror world with solid efforts “Lights Out” and “Annabelle: Creation” under his belt is sort of out of his element. The humor never congeals with the film’s darker elements and the film just doesn’t look glossy and pretty.

There are a few bits here and there that sort of work – there is something fun that happens in the final act – but the film mostly left my dumbfounded. It just doesn’t work. The jokes weren’t funny, the characters were uninteresting, and the effects weren’t all that impressive. Zachary Levi spends most of the movie just mugging for the camera and it’s awkward and silly. There are comedic superhero movies starring young actors that work - “Spider-Man: Homecoming” comes to mind- and there are lower budgeted irreverent superhero movies that work – let’s say “Kick-Ass” - but “Shazam!” breaks the fundamental rule of cinema – it’s forgettable.  GRADE: C-


Saturday, April 06, 2019

The Secret Afterlife of Pets: Stephen King’s “Pet Sematary” Still Works 30 Years Later

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Sometimes it makes bad things seem good. Take, for instance, the 1989 horror flick “Pet Sematary.” It was a modest success at the time when the horror genre was in a bit of turmoil. Slashers were slowly on their way out and no one knew what to do with the genre. Why not visit the Stephen King well again for what the author has described as his scariest book? “Pet Sematary” as a film is fine but it’s not very good.

It certainly doesn’t hold up that much today. Even if the two year old playing Gage is pretty decent considering he’s essentially a baby, the daughter is pretty terrible. The film gets bogged down in boring side plots – who the hell cares about Rachel’s sick sister? The only reason the character scared kids is because she’s played onscreen by a man in horrible makeup. The story of “Pet Sematary” is great, but the final product, for all intents and purposes, is sort of a mess. And it’s not scary – disturbing perhaps – you certainly won’t see a studio film made today with a two year old coming back from the dead killing people with a scalpel. The film was essentially a horror film about grief another recent movie to tackle the difficult subject matter was last year’s Hereditary. And now we get another version of “Pet Sematary” that fixes everything that was slightly wonky about the 1989 version and has a few fun twists up its sleeves.

The new iteration of “Pet Sematary” is pretty similar to the original film for a majority of the time. A couple moves from the busy city to the rural comforts of Maine. There’s Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and their young daughter Ellie and baby Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie). Ellie also has a cat named Church. They meet a weird but nice neighbor Jud (John Lithgow) who sort of becomes a father figure to the family.

Things seem to be going ok until Louis begins having weird visions of a college student who was recently hit by a car and killed on the campus he works at. Oh and there happens to be a pet “sematary” in the woods behind the Creed’s house where all the kids in the town bury their dead pets. And there seems to be something slightly evil just beyond the pet sematary. In fact its an ancient burial ground that brings dead things back to life! So when Ellie’s cat gets hit by one of the many speeding tractor trailers that whip down their road, Jud recommends that Louis bury the cat in the place beyond the pet sematary. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you zombie Church. The cat in the original film looked evil before he was killed and zombified. The Church in the new film is precious looking and then is all mangey.

At this point we all know where the story is going but the film plays with your expectations to the film’s – and our- benefit. Screenwriters Matt Greenberg and Jeff Buhler have fun playing with an audience who they know is seeing the film because they know the original movie. Directors Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer know that too. But they also know how to make this story scarier and fix things that didn’t work in the first film. Rachel’s sister Zelda still figures into the story but is handled in a much better way as are the overall themes of death, grief, and the afterlife. Stephen King has essentially given us a zombie story but told through the point of view of a family dealing with tragedy. That’s why this story still resonates today.

The new Pet Sematary is scary, atmospheric, and not at all the cornball of a movie that the original 1989 film is. Of course that movie was certainly a product of its time and I admire its weirdness. This new film is a bit more straightforward but its a tad less campy and overall better paced. I enjoyed the performances – even if no one can replace Fred Gwynne – and the film’s third act was creepy and extremely fun. Sometimes remakes are better.  GRADE: B


Saturday, March 23, 2019

This is “Us:” Jordan Peele’s Bonkers New Nightmare is an Instant Horror Classic


One this is most definitely true of Jordan Peele’s “Us:” it demands that you see it a second time. And I’m ok with that because it’s completely outstanding; it’s creepy, scary, intense, funny, and, best of all, flat-out insane. The preview for “Us” tells us all we need to know to get us to want to see this bizarre new follow up to his Oscar-winning hit “Get Out:” a family on vacation in their summer home begin to be terrorized by another family who look exactly like them. Sold. And yet there is so much more to “Us” as a film that I almost feel like I underpaid for the fantastic experience of it all. The film is a smart and funny horror flick that has a much bigger scope, fun twists and turns, perfect performances, and has a lot to say about society once you begin to discuss the film afterwards. In fact, I just can’t stop thinking about it. Jordan Peele is a genius.

The film is a reunion of sorts for “Black Panther” supporting actors Lupita Nyong’o and Winston Duke who play the Tylers, a middle class couple who set out to their vacation lake house with their two kids. We learn through flashbacks that Adaelaide (Nyong’o), as a child, had a traumatic experience in a carnival fun house. She seems to generally gotten over it though she’s a bit overprotective of her daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and especially her younger son Jason (Evan Alex). Her husband Gabe (Duke) is your typical goofy, funny dad who likes to tease and slightly embarrass his kids. Seems like a normal family to me. But all is not what it appears to be on this supposed idyllic summer vacation. There’s definitely something wrong. And later that night a family of four shows up in the driveway – all wearing red jumpsuits and clutching menacing golden scissors – who seem to want one thing: to get in their house. Oh and they literally look just like them (they’re even played by the same actors).

It would criminal to say much more as the fun of it all is determined by how little you actually know going into the film. Peele has crafted a really fun and scary film that’s part home invasion thriller and part – well he mixes lots of genres and inspirations. Essentially a full length bonkers “Twilight Zone” episode, “Get Out” was a modern take on “The Stepford Wives” and “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” but “Us” doesn’t feel quite as definitive. I felt the influences of lots of films. Everything from “Funny Games” to “Jaws” to “The Birds” and “The People Under the Stairs.” Throw in a bit of zombie movie, David Lynch, Alfred Hitchcock, and - once again - a “Twilight Zone” and you get somewhat of what to expect in “Us.” Peele always has a message – his choices in his script and direction are never just coincidence. It was obvious what he had to say in “Get Out.” But with “Us” it’s slightly more challenging and vague and open to interpretation (and, for the record, arguably much scarier). In fact “Us” isn’t just the simple home invasion film that the trailer sets up – this movie will facilitate a post-viewing discussion that could take weeks to unravel. I can’t remember a mainstream film doing that since the controversial “mother!” but that film was far less digestible.

Peele is a master filmmaker, even at only two feature films into his career. His movie is so well crafted you’d think it was a veteran filmmaker 30 years into his career. Technical merits are solid. The film’s visuals are beautiful and telling – an overheard shot of the family as they make their way across the sandy beach with the sunlight casting large black shadows is one of the most seemingly innocuous but menacing shots of foreshadowing in quite some time. The music score from composer Michael Abels is just as menacing and simply outstanding. The film’s third act is simply bonkers and a complete showcase for the wonderful and Oscar-worthy Nyong’o who kills it in two terrific performances. Also great in a supporting role is Mad Men’s Elisabeth Moss as the Tyler’s friend also on vacation with her family

Do me a favor? Go see the film, laugh and scream, and then talk about with those you saw it with. Talk to the woman sitting in front of you who seems confused. Facilitate discussion. I don’t think there’s exactly a wrong or right way to interpret Peele’s film. He has a lot to say about class, race, and American society in general. The movie’s trailer insists we are our own worst enemy and I think that’s a great jumping off point. God I can’t wait to see this again.  GRADE: A

Friday, March 08, 2019

The Marvelous Ms. Danvers: “Captain Marvel” is a Solid and Overdue Addition to the MCU


There’s been plenty of great female characters in the twenty Marvel films that have preceded “Captain Marvel.” But none of them have headlined their own film. There’s no reason twenty films in, there has not been a Marvel film centered around a female protagonist. Why is this such a big deal? Well it wouldn’t be if they had made a female centered superhero film years ago. Audiences have waited a long time for Captain Marvel to show up and she’s in glorious form. “Captain Marvel” is definitely one of the most flat-out fun films in the MCU; sure it may not carry the emotional weight of the years preceding “Infinity War” but it stands fine on its own two feet, featuring fantastic visuals, an interesting story, a fun nostalgia streak, and likable characters. This is definitely solid mid-tier Marvel. And it even features one of cinema’s cutest cats.

“Captain Marvel” is sort of “Guardians of the Galaxy” lite. The film is set in the same general universe as that film and even has some crossover characters and races of people. We’re introduced to Brie Larson’s character as Vers who is a Kree and suffers from weird visions that feature Annette Bening. Who wouldn’t want to have weird visions of Annette Bening?? After a mission involving infiltrating the evil shape-shifting Krulls goes awry Vers crash lands on Earth. In Los Angeles. In a Blockbuster. Did I mention the film takes place in 1995? There she meets young versions of SHIELD agents Samuel L. Jackon’s Nicky Fury and Clark Gregg’s Phil Coulson. There, she must help fight off some invading Skrulls and figure out what’s the deal with her bizarre memories and the fact that she may in fact be a former US Air Force pilot named Carol Danvers.

The film could have easily gone down the “fish out of water” plot hole but that was done in “Thor” and even DC’s “Wonder Woman.” The film instead centers around a mystery involving our fantastic lead with welcomed bits of comedy. Directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck – who come from the indie world of films like “Half Nelson” – imbue the film with a wonderful intimacy and also 90s nostalgia much in the way “Guardians” was an ode to the 80s. Conceiving the film as a prequel to the other Marvel films also gives the filmmakers the freedom to do their own thing while also eventually connecting the film to the rest of the MCU, much in the same way “Captain America: The First Avenger” was essentially all a setup for “The Avengers.”

Technical merits are top-notch. The visual effects are fantastic. The music score from composer Pinar Toprak is solid if not particularly memorable like most of the Marvel films (she’s also the first female composer in the MCU). Nothing has really come close to the “Ant-Man” theme and Black Panther’s Oscar-winning music. All of the performances are great. Brie is likable in the title role and she really kicks ass even if her performance is a tad understated. Her mysterious story works pretty well and thankfully doesn’t need to include a love interest. Jude Law is good as Vers’ commander/mentor, even if he does too much mansplaning. And how fun is it to see someone like Bening in this? At this point it feels like if you haven’t done a Marvel film are you really even an actor? I previously mentioned the film introduces a cute kitty and that darned cat pretty much steals the movie.

There’s not much to complain about in “Captain Marvel.” Maybe it a take a little time to really get going but the film is just as exciting, the action is just as well-done (including a great sequence on an elevated train), and the characters as just as well drawn as any other solid Marvel film. Is it the best? Of course not. The film isn’t nearly as unique at some of the other entries but Marvel’s overdue take on a feminist storyline is quite good and I can’t wait to see what Brie has up her sleeve in the next Avengers film.  GRADE: B+


Sunday, March 03, 2019

Something to Stalk About: “Greta” is a Fun, If Standard, Campy Stalker Thriller


Call me disheartened but I refuse to believe anyone in New York City would take the time to travel to a complete stranger’s home to return a lost purse. At least not alone. And yet that’s exactly the premise of “Greta,” a movie in which no one really acts like a real human being. Thankfully “Greta” devolves into a campy stalker thriller so that’s ok in my book. It stars recent Oscar nominee Isabelle Huppert doing her crazy worst as a woman who baits naive people with “lost” purses around the city hoping to form a friendship and then going all “Misery” on them. “Greta” reminds me of the early 90s stalker dramas; your “Single White Females” your “Hand That Rock the Cradles” and I’m all for it. It does very little to be all that unique or different, but it’s well-paced, entertaining, and features a wildly fun to watch Huppert who chews up and spits out the scenery around her, sometimes even flipping tables over in process.

Enter Chloe Grace Moretz’ Frances McCullen who takes Greta’s bait hook line and sinker. Frances is a nice girl from Boston. She just moved to Manhattan where she’s living with her friend Erica (Maika Monroe) whose father bought her an apartment for graduation. At least they try to explain why two young twenty-somethings have a killer pad. Frances finds a purse on the subway, tries to drop it off at the lost and found – which has nobody working there – and takes the purse home. She decides to be a good Samaritan and return the bag to its owner. When she arrives to a cute little offset apartment building, she finds an even cuter older French woman named Greta (Huppert) who is thrilled to see her purse and offers Frances some coffee. Don’t go in there!!

The two women are obviously lonely people and quickly find a connection. In real life, these people would never see each other again. But we’re watching a crazy stalker thriller so naturally the two women exchange phone numbers and continue to meet up and hang out. Erica who seemingly spends all her time doing yoga in her huge apartment things Frances is insane for hanging out with a woman she doesn’t even know. And then one night when at Greta’s place for dinner, Frances fines a cupboard full of the same purse she found and returned to Greta. It freaks her out naturally and she promptly leaves without giving Greta much of an explanation. And then soon Greta wonders why Frances refuses to answer her texts or calls. And then it gets crazier from there.

The film is surprisingly directed by Neil Jordan who gave us such cinematic classics as “The Crying Game” (a film I can’t say I’m a fan of) and “Interview With the Vampire” (which is campy enough itself). His last real impact in mainstream film was the Jodie Foster starring the NYC-set “The Brave One” which followed its own worn out vigilante storyline. Jordan also co-wrote the film (he shares credit with Ray Wright who wrote the story) and it he has certainly crafted a beautiful movie (it was shot by Seamus McGarvey) but besides some tense moments it doesn’t quite offer anything new or all that surprising. I find myself wondering what someone like Jordan saw in this well-worn material. I think one of the biggest flaws from my point of view is Moretz who isn’t given that much to do with this character and comes off a tad bland. She’s lonely because she’s recently lost her mother but she’s mostly reactive to all the crazy stuff that Greta is doing to her. Stalking her at work, following her friends around, and being a general nut bag. This is Isabelle Huppert’s show and she’s insanely good. Literally. The film’s final act isn’t very original but it’s surprisingly satisfying.

In the end, what’s the point of all this? It’s just a somewhat over-the-top thriller about a crazy woman. But it’s entire existence is predicated on the fact that Frances would even return a purse she found on the subway. I believe that there are good people in the world. But turn you gotta turn that stuff into the police. Otherwise you might end up starring in a crazy bitch thriller.  GRADE: B

Friday, February 22, 2019

Oscar Forecast: “Roma” With a Chance of “Green Book” and Five Other Movies. Yikes.


Update: Well Green Book pulled it off. It's somewhat surprising and yet not all that surprising as well. It's definitely a movie a majority of people liked and therefore worked wonders with the preferential ballot. Is it even close to the best filmmaking of the year? Hardly, but it's a fine movie. I'm sure it'll be remembered as an oddity in Oscar history when we look back on this bizarre year of solid films. But there is so much more to celebrate than Green Book's questionable win. Black Panther took home 3 Oscars - somewhat surprisingly - including Best Score. All three well deserving wins. A Spider-Man movie won an Oscar over Disney juggernauts and the night was filled with diverse winners of many colors. Every Best Picture nominee won something. Lady Gaga won her Oscar... but Glenn Close didn't. In what was totally a Marion Collitard moment, Olivia Colman was announced the Best Actresses surprising almost everyone. I think it came down to the fact that Olivia was too hard to ignore considering Close's film had only one nomination and was a mediocre film at best. This was the right decision. Besides, there are lots of Brits in the Academy, remember that. Spike Lee finally won an Oscar after decades of being ignored. The controversial Bohemian Rhapsody was actually the biggest winner of the night with 4 wins including Rami Malek's worthy Best Actor win, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. It only lost one award it was nominated for: Best Picture. Take that, haters. In a night of surprises and bad picks (I got 15 out 24 correct) I'm glad I saw the win for Free Solo coming and I'm glad I changed my Editing pick to Bohemian Rhapsody from Vice at the last minute. Also getting 2 of the 3 short categories right is always a win. Til next year... See the winners here




On Sunday, second Christmas arrives in the form of the 91st annual Academy Awards. Let’s get into it. Fair warning: the following write-up contains gratuitous amounts of Oscar nerdiness.

BEST PICTURE
I’ve been wrong the last three years in a row and it would be nice if I could get this right again. It seems like only yesterday I had a seven year stretch of correctly predicted BP winners (The Departed through Argo). And then something… funny happened. The Academy’s tastes began to shift, there was a whiff of change in the air, and they became - dare I say - unpredictable. I couldn’t even correctly predict last year’s win for “The Shape of Water” which actually makes the most sense in hindsight. It makes for an exciting show but for someone who spends the winter months trying to decipher which way the Academy will go, it’s anxiety inducing. And yet again here we are in a wacky year where “the rules” – ie, SAG noms, “requisite nominations” - that used to be very helpful - will be thrown out the window yet again. For several years it seemed like the SAG Best Cast category was the unofficial bellwether as to what could eventually win the Best Picture Oscar. Gravity, The Revenant, La La Land – all failed to get a Best Cast nomination at SAG and all failed to win Best Picture at the Oscars. So how could The Shape of Water possibly win BP without that same nomination? But it did! It did win. I maintain that Three Billboard’s lack of a directing nomination was telling. Sure, Argo pulled it off just a few years ago but there was a rallying cry behind Ben Affleck’s snub; no one seemed to care that Marin McDonagh got shafted.

And that is why I am somewhat hesitantly predicting a win for Roma. A film that was not nominated at SAG but still received two somewhat surprising Oscar acting nods for two of its actresses. I won’t even get into Roma’s lack of an editing nod – Birdman didn't get one and still won. But I think it’s because the Academy didn’t want to nominate Alfonso Cuaron literally 8 times. Some are predicting a victory for “Green Book.” But it’s lack of a directing nomination is telling, not to mention its SAG nomination snub. However, with the way the preferential ballot works a lot of these “rules” feel more less and less helpful. A legitimate argument could be made for ALL EIGHT BP NOMINEES. That is unprecedented. It was so much easier when it was The King’s Speech vs The Social Network or Birdman vs Boyhood or Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan. Ok bad example. So I’m officially going with Roma, which just triumphed at BAFTA and its hard to predict a BP/Director split to I’m sticking with it. Unfortunately, it seems like A Star is Born is just happy to be nominated.

Will win: “Roma”
Should win: “A Star is Born”
Should have been nominated: “A Quiet Place”


DIRECTING
If the “rules” I speak of have become less predictive the last few years there’s one that has truly stayed the course: DGA. This award has a tremendously predictive history. Alfonso Cuaron won at DGA and is not surprisingly on his way to claim his second Best Directing Oscar. And that’s fine and all but what a great opportunity it would have been to reward Spike Lee (which will probably happy in Screenplay).

Will win: Alfonso Cuarón, “Roma”
Should win: Spike Lee, “BlacKkKlansman”
Should have been nominated: Bradley Cooper, “A Star Is Born”


ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Controversy aside, I’m pretty certain that Rami Malek is going to take this for Bohemian Rhapsody. Even people who hate the movie say he’s the best thing about it. He won the Globe, SAG and BAFTA. It would be an upset if he lost at this point. Bale or Cooper could win but I’d be shocked if Malek loses.

Will win: Rami Malek, “Bohemian Rhapsody”
Should win: Rami Malek, “Bohemian Rhapsody”
Should have been nominated: John David Washington, “BlacKkKlansman”


ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
What a crazy trajectory the ladies in this category have had. Another young vs old, newbie vs veteran narrative took shape this year as it became Gaga vs Glenn. Yes Glenn Close has yet to win an Oscar but does she really need it for The Wife? It’s a mediocre movie and she’s fine in it but to think Gaga and Colman will lose a deserving award to a lifetime achievement honor is just sad (though Gaga is really in third here considering she’s a lock for a win in the Song category). At this point after Close’s surprise Globe victory and powerful speech it’s hers to lose.

Will win: Glenn Close, “The Wife”
Should win: Olivia Colman, “The Favourite”
Should have been nominated: Toni Collette, “Hereditary”


ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
I don’t hate “Green Book” as much as other people do and Mahershala is fine in the film. But I don’t quite get the need to give the guy another Oscar so quickly after winning for Moonlight. A win for Ali feels like another lock even though this category sometimes ends up rewarding veterans: your Christopher Plummers, your Alan Arkins, your George Clooneys, your James Coburns, etc. So a surprise win for Sam Elliott wouldn’t be the craziest thing to happen.

Will win: Mahershala Ali, “Green Book”
Should win: Richard E. Grant, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”
Should have been nominated: Michael B. Jordan, “Black Panther”


ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
What a weird category this year. Regina King feels like the front runner but she wasn’t strangely not nominated at SAG and at BAFTA. It’s very rare for a performer to win an Oscar after being snubbed at SAG but it has happened twice: Marcia Gay Harden and Christoph Waltz. (Fun fact: Harden’s never even been nominated at the Golden Globes for any role). If King doesn’t win it’ll probably go to Rachel Weisz, who has already won in this category (against Amy Adams I might add). Adams could win I guess but it feels like no one really seems to care much about Vice these days. I thought she was fine in the film and wouldn’t mind her finally winning her first Oscar.

Will win: Regina King, “If Beale Street Could Talk”
Should win: Amy Adams, “Vice”
Should have been here: Emily Blunt, “A Quiet Place”


WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
Even if Spike Lee isn’t going to win for Directing BlacKkKlansman he’s most likely to triumph for helping to write BlacKkKlansman. This isn’t quite a slam-dunk – Can You Ever Forgive Me? surprised many by winning the WGA – and there’s a lot of affection for If Beale Street Could Talk and its source material. Having said that, it feels increasingly difficult for non-BP nominees to win in the screenplay categories (the last time a non-BP nominee won in this category was 1998’s Gods & Monsters)

Will win: “BlacKkKlansman”
Should win: “BlacKkKlansman”
Should have been nominated: “Black Panther”


WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
This category is a tad more welcoming to non-BP fare (The last time a non-BP nominee won in the Original Screenplay category was 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). I think this comes down to Green Book vs The Favourite. This will be a very important category to watch. If Green Book wins it could very well win Best Picture. If The Favourite wins it’s highly unlikely that Green Book will take the cake. I’m guessing The Favourite since it feels like the most Original of these nominees and it doesn’t help that one of Green Book’s screenwriters (Nick Vallelonga) has been in some hot water recently.

Will win: “The Favourite”
Should win: “The Favourite”
Should have been nominated: “Eighth Grade”


CINEMATOGRAPHY
I’d be surprised if Alfonso Cuaron doesn’t win for lensing his own film. It’s certainly unprecedented. The Cinematography guild wasn’t having it (Cold War won at ASC) but I think the Academy will reward the film here.

Will win: “Roma”
Should win: “Roma”
Should have been nominated: “If Beale Street Could Talk”


COSTUME DESIGN
It’s period vs. fantasy. Usually it’s dumb to bet against a flashy period piece drama featuring royals but the costuming in Black Panther is also gorgeous and unique. Flip a coin really, but I think The Favourite will probably win out. And if Black Panther surprises with a win I’ll be happy to be wrong.

Will win: “The Favourite”
Should win: “Black Panther”
Should have been nominated: “Crazy Rich Asians”


FILM EDITING
Another bizarre category filled with nontraditional nominees. Where’s the random action movie? Where’s the war film? There’s nothing too flashy or obvious about any of these nominees; they’re all fine. I think Vice, which won at BAFTA, will probably win because it arguably has the “flashiest” editing of the nominees, with lots of insert cross-cutting scenes. Bohemian Rhapsody could win here as music films tend to do well in this category and everyone knows that the troubled production of this film was truly saved in the editing room. So don’t be shocked if Bohemian Rhapsody pulls it off.

Will win: “Vice”
Should win: “Vice”
Should have been nominated: “A Star is Born”


MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Vice will probably win for transforming Christian Bale into Dick Chaney. The academy loves a good transformation (there’s a reason why films like The Iron Lady, Darkest Hour, La Vie en Rose have won here). Anyone who looks at stills from Border would be impressed with that work but have enough people seen the film or even know of it?

Will win: “Vice”
Should win: “Vice”
Should have been nominated: “Black Panther”


MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
With “First Man’s” gorgeous score shockingly left out, this race literally comes down to race: the three front runners feature predominately African American casts: If Beale Street Could Talk, BlacKkKlansman, and Black Panther. I think Beale Street will take it but wouldn’t be shocked to see any of these three win.

Will win: “If Beale Street Could Talk”
Should win: “Black Panther”
Should have been nominated: “First Man”


MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
The only real sure thing of the night besides Best Director. Lady Gaga, half way to her EGOT.

Will win: “Shallow” from “A Star Is Born”
Should win: “Shallow” from “A Star Is Born”
Should have been nominated: “Ashes” from “Deadpool 2”


PRODUCTION DESIGN
A lot of times this award is tied closely to Costume Design. So this is another battle between Art Directors Guild winners & front runners Black Panther and The Favourite. The Academy has been known to embrace worlds created with the help of computers so a win for Black Panther wouldn’t be unheard of, but I won’t be surprised if The Favourite wins this if they also win for Costumes. Flip a coin.

Will win: “The Favourite”
Should win: “Black Panther”
Should have been nominated: “Ready Player One”


SOUND EDITING
This category isn’t very welcoming to non-BP nominees as I’ve recently come to find out. Skyfall won in 2013 but it tied with Zero Dark Thirty. But there’s a reason A Quiet Place was nominated for this award. It’s the film most reliant on sound effects. However, it’s not just sound people voting so I wouldn’t be shocked if something else, like Bohemian Rhapsody takes this one. I’m totally going out on a limb here.

Will win: “A Quiet Place”
Should win: “A Quiet Place”
Should have been nominated: “Ready Player One”


SOUND MIXING
I think it’s a race between the two music-based films. Flip a coin, but don’t count out First Man.

Will win: “Bohemian Rhapsody”
Should win: “First Man”
Should have been nominated: “Mission: Impossible – Fallout”


VISUAL EFFECTS
Generally, in this category Best Picture winners tend to win. Of course “Ex Machina” beat several BP nominees that year. Usually the movie that wins is the film most likely to be a BP nominee, ie “Blade Runner 2049” and “Interstellar.” That film this year would be “First Man” (it’s also the only film of the five with multiple nominations) but the film’s effects are more subtle so I think the Academy will finally embrace the Marvel Cinematic Universe with a win for the effects-heavy Avengers. Though they really should be rewarding “Ready Player One” which has some of the most impressive full sequences of CGI since “Avatar.” (It’s also crazy that no Spielberg film has won this award since 1993’s “Jurassic Park.”)

Will win: “Avengers: Infinity War”
Should win: “Ready Player One”
Should have been here: “Black Panther”


ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
It’s rare for a non-Disney or non-Pixar film to win here, but I think considering the Disney films are sequels don’t really help their cause. Sure “Toy Story 3” pulled it off, but that was a Best Picture nominee. I think “Spider-Man” will prevail since it has been winning every other top animation award but don’t be too shocked if there’s an upset. Remember when “Brave” beat out “Wreck-It Ralph?” That still hurts.

Will win: “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”
Should win: “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”
Should of been nominated: They actually got this category right this year


FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
How does a film in this category that is also a BP nominee not win here? There is some consensus that those voting for Roma for BP would be hesitant to also vote for it here but that’s nonsense. Having said that, a surprise win for “Cold War” wouldn’t be the craziest of upsets.

Will win: “Roma” (Mexico)
Should win: “Roma” (Mexico)


DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE)
A win for RBG would be rightfully politically motivated which I have no problem with and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has literally been everywhere lately (mostly in the hospital recovering actually but she’s a tough old broad). Having said that, the film itself while completely enjoyable isn’t necessary a feat of magnificent non-fiction filmmaking. That would be Free Solo, a big scale, nail-biter of a film about a man who attempts to climb Yosemite’s 3,000 ft El Capitan Wall without any ropes or safety gear. Either film has a decent shot.

Will win: “Free Solo”
Should win: “Free Solo”
Should have been here: “Three Identical Strangers”


DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)
Will win: “Period. End of Sentence.


SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Will win: “Bao”


SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Will win: “Marguerite”