The 93rd Academy Awards: Predictions

It's time again for my Oscar predictions! And this has been the most unique Oscar season to say the least. And the longest as they pushed the ceremony to late April due to COVID, extending the release date eligibility through February. That means some of these nominees were what I considered 2020 films and made or were eligible for my 2020 year end list while others will be eligible for my 2021 year end list. While the Oscars extended their eligibility, I didn't. Anyways, I haven't been as active on this blog for various reasons, and you can ask me about that later. But there's a few posts that I deem necessary to post on here instead of my personal social media pages. And this is one of them, if for nothing else than to have it as a reference that I can go back to. But here are my yearly predictions for the Oscars, along with my personal picks if I had a vote. And whatever commentary I decide to add with each. I hope you enjoy! 

Documentary (Short Subject):

Nominations:

- "Colette" - Anthony Giacchino and Alice Doyard
- "A Concerto is a Conversation" - Ben Proudfoot and Kris Bowers
- "Do Not Split" - Andres Hammer and Charlotte Cook
- "Hunger Ward" - Skye Fitzgerald and Michael Scheuerman
- "A Love Song for Latasha" - Sophia Nahli and Janice Duncan

Will Win:

- "A Love Song for Latasha" - Sophia Nahli and Janice Duncan

Should Win:

- "Colette" - Anthony Giacchino and Alice Doyard

I always advocate for people to watch these shorts. They never get much attention, but a lot of them are really good. So search them out! All of these documentary shorts are available to watch. My personal favorite is "Colette." It's about an old lady who was a French Resistance fighter who decides to go back to Germany for the first time in 74 years with a young history student. I love the bond these two form and the emotion is high because they visit the concentration camp where this lady's brother died. As far as my predicted winner, I'm riding the Netflix ship this year with the shorts. That's "A Love Song for Latasha" here. And it's a nice tribute to a young black girl that got shot and killed in the 90s. There's relevance there and I'm betting on that for the victory. But I have my eye on "Do Not Split" as that's about the Hong Kong protests a couple of years ago. Really anything could win, though. You almost have to pick a name out of a hat for them. 

Short Film (Animated):

Nominations:

- "Burrow" - Madeline Sharafian and Michael Capbarat
- "Genius Loci" - Adrien Mérigeau and Amaury Ovise
- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier
- "Opera" - Erick Oh
- "Yes-People" - Gísli Darri Halldórsson and Arnar Gunnarsson

Will Win:

- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier

Should Win:

- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier

Oh man. If you haven't seen "If Anything Happens I Love You," that's a powerful little film that's an absolute tear-jerker. It involves parents having to deal with their daughter becoming a victim of a school shooting, if that gives you a hint. It's on Netflix. Go watch it. Of all the shorts, I feel this one is the most safe to win. But Pixar is always in play. "Burrow" came to Disney+ with "Soul." So I wouldn't be surprised. It's good. But with how great the other choice is, I would be a bit disappointed if it lost to Pixar. 

Short film (Live Action):

Nominations:

- "Feeling Through" - Doug Roland and Susan Ruzenski 
- "The Letter Room" - Elvira Lind and Sofia Sondervan
- "The Present" - Farah Nabulsi and Ossama Bawardi
- "Two Distant Strangers" - Tavo Free and Desmond Roe
- "White Eye" - Tomer Shushan and Shira Hochman

Will Win:

- "Two Distant Strangers" - Tavo Free and Desmond Roe

Should Win:

- "Feeling Through" - Doug Roland and Susan Ruzenski

If you haven't been paying attention, the trial of former officer Derek Chauvin just concluded. During that, another black man was shot and killed by police. And that happening right around the time where Oscar voting was open makes me think they'll feel obligated to vote for "Two Distant Strangers," a short on Netflix about a black man experiencing a Groundhog Day phenomenon where he gets shot over and over by a racist, white officer. Instead of giving my complex feelings on this, which I don't have time for anyways, I'm going to recommend you search on YouTube for "Groundhog Day for a Black Man." Much better. Also, while you're there on YouTube, search for "Feeling Through," my favorite from this category. It's another feel good movie and I'll be super happy if it gets the win. It's about a guy who helps a blind and deaf man catch his bus. And the actor is actually blind and deaf, making it feel more genuine.

International Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "Another Round" - Denmark
- "Better Days" - Hong Kong 
- "Collective" - Romania
- "The Man Who Sold His Skin" - Tunisia 
- "Quo Vadis, Aida?" - Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Will Win:

- "Another Round" - Denmark

Should Win:

- N/A

I haven't seen any of these. But I hear good things about them. Three are on Hulu. I don't have Hulu. But if you do, you can watch them. I can't remember which three. Sorry. But "Another Round" also got a best director nomination, so I feel like that makes it a shew-in for the victory here. "Collective" also is a double nominee as it got in for documentary feature as well. But that's not quite the same thing as getting best director. 

Documentary (Feature):

Nominations:

- "Collective" - Alexander Nanau and Bianca Oana
- "Crip Camp" - Nicole Newnham, Jim LeBrecht and Sara Bolder
- "The Mole Agent" - Maite Alverdi and Marcela Santibáñez
- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster
- "Time" - Garrett Bradley, Lauren Domino and Kellen Quinn

Will Win:

- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster

Should Win:

- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster

I've not actually seen all these. In fact, I've only seen two, the two Netflix ones - "My Octopus Teacher" and "Crip Camp." So maybe I shouldn't declare a favorite, but I just love "My Octopus Teacher" so much, so I have to give it some love. And it seems to have all the momentum at the moment, winning most of the precursors. So I'll go with it as my prediction. But weird things often happen with this category, so who knows. I hear "Time" could be the spoiler. My personal gut points out that "Collective" is a double nominee, while "Crip Camp" is a popular Netflix documentary that's quite inspirational. So nothing would really surprise me. Accept for maybe "The Mole Agent." That would be a huge shock. 

Music (Original Song):

Nominations:

- "Fight for You" - H.E.R. (From "Judas and the Black Messiah"; Music by H.E.R. and Dernst Emile II; Lyrics by H.E.R. and Tiara Thomas) 
- "Hear My Voice" - Celeste (From "The Trial of the Chicago 7"; Music by Daniel Pemberton; Lyrics by Daniel Pemberton and Celeste Waite)
- "Husavik" - Will Ferrell and My Marianne (From "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of the Fire Saga"; Music and Lyrics by Sava Kotecha, Fat Max Gsus and Rickard Göransson) 
- "lo sí (Seen)" - Laura Pausini (From "The Life Ahead"; Music by Diane Waren; Lyrics by Diane Waren and Laura Pausini)
- "Speak Now" - Leslie Odom, Jr. (From "One Night in Miami..."; Music and Lyrics by Leslie Odom, Jr. and Sam Ashworth) 

Will Win:

- "Speak Now" - Leslie Odom, Jr. (From "One Night in Miami..."; Music and Lyrics by Leslie Odom, Jr. and Sam Ashworth)

Should Win:

- "Husavik" - Will Ferrell and My Marianne (From "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of the Fire Saga"; Music and Lyrics by Sava Kotecha, Fat Max Gsus and Rickard Göransson)

Honestly this is kind of a boring category for me this year. "Speak Now" has the momentum and will probably win. And while the songs are fine, "Husavik" is my easy favorite. Not only is it a much better song than the other nominees, but it's literally the song they perform at the climax of "Eurovision." I have no idea where the other four even play. My guess is end credits. They certainly aren't as important to their movie as "Husavik" if I'm wrong on my guess. But I'll tell you what I think should've been nominated along with "Husavik." "Make It Work" from "Jingle Jangle," "Everybody Cries" from "The Outpost," "Rain Song" from "Minari," and... yes... "Wuhan Flu" from "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm." Three of those were even on the Oscar shortlist for this category, with "Everybody Cries" being the only one that wasn't. So the Oscars messed this one up. 

Music (Original Score):

Nominations:

- "Da 5 Bloods" - Terence Blanchard
- "Mank" - Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
- "Minari" - Emile Mosseri
- "News of the World" - James Newton Howard
- "Soul" - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste

Will Win:

- "Soul" - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - James Newton Howard

I really enjoy listening to all the scores in the weeks leading up to the Oscars. And that's exactly what I did driving around in my car this month. And all five really have their positives. "Da 5 Bloods" has an appropriate military feel. "Mank" does a great job replicating a classic Hollywood score. "Minari" has a really pretty soundtrack. And I'm always a sucker for a Jazz score like "Soul." But the score for "News of the World" is the one I fell in love with this month. You might call it a typical movie score, but it's very string heavy score that is beyond gorgeous and does a great job of giving you a Western feel, which is what the movie is. And I learned that James Newton Howard has never won this award, despite some iconic scores. So why not give him a win here? 

Visual Effects:

Nominations:

- "Love and Monsters" - Matt Sloan, Genevieve Camilleri, Matt Everitt and Brian Cox
- "The Midnight Sky" - Matthew Kasmir, Christopher Lawrence and Matt Solomon
- "Mulan" - Sean Faden, Anders Langlands, Seth Maury and Steve Ingram
- "The One and Only Ivan" - Nick Davis, Greg Fisher, Ben Jones and Santiago Colomo Martinez 
- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

Will Win:

- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

Should Win:

- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

I find it hilarious that "Love and Monsters" got a nomination here. Only in 2020 would that happen. This is the category reserved for big Blockbusters. And they all jumped ship due to COVID. Except "Tenet." That still came out. So why not? Let's give "Tenet" the Oscar. Whether you loved it or thought it was really confusing, you can't deny that they did some trippy things with those visual effects that's definitely Oscar worthy. "The Midnight Sky" is the potential spoiler. And sure. The visual effects might be the only good part of that movie, but they're still good. I'm willing to separate the movie from the visual effects and say that could be deserving. But I'd still prefer "Tenet" get the win.

Sound:

Nominations:

- "Greyhound" - Warren Shaw, Michael Minkler, Beau Borders and David Wyman
- "Mank" - Ren Klyce, Jeremy Molod, David Parker, Nathan Nance and Drew Kunin
- "News of the World" - Oliver Tarney, Mike Prestwood Smith, William Miller and John Pritchett 
- "Soul" - Ren Klyce, Coya Elliott and David Parker 
- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh 

Will Win:

- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh

Should Win:

- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh

Just one sound category this year. No more trying to remember the difference between sound mixing and editing. They're all one category now. And while I'm sure many hours of hard work went into all of these, there's only one nominee that has the word sound in the title. And if you haven't seen "Sound of Metal," it's the sound design that makes that movie so great. They make you feel what it's like to be going deaf, which thus makes you feel for their character. It's one of the best uses of sound design that I can think of. And one of the only ones where the sound made all the difference in making the movie work. So let's not overthink this one, Academy. 

Makeup and Hairstyling:

Nominations:

- "Emma" - Marese Langan, Laura Allen and Claudia Stolze
- "Hillbilly Elegy" - Eryn Krueger Mekash, Matthew Mungle and Patricia Dehaney
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Sergio Lopez-Rivera, Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson 
- "Mank" - Gigi Williams, Kimberley Spiteri and Colleen LaBaff 
- "Pinocchio" - Mark Coulier, Dalia Colli and Francesco Pegoretti 

Will Win:

- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Sergio Lopez-Rivera, Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson

Should Win:

- "Pinocchio" - Mark Coulier, Dalia Colli and Francesco Pegoretti

I think "Ma Rainey" is going to take this is. And I don't have a problem with that. But I have this strange feeling that "Pinocchio is going to take it. It's like when "Suicide Squad" won this award. No one saw that coming. But yet the more I think about it, the more I think that it would be a great win for "Pinocchio." And I haven't even seen the movie, but just watch the trailers and look at that brilliant work with the makeup. Maybe there's some CGI work there, I don't know. But I do think a good amount of the work is with makeup. That's what it looks like, anyways. 

Film Editing:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - Yorgos Lampinos 
- "Nomadland" - Chloé Zhao 
- "Promising Young Woman" - Frédéric Thoraval
- "Sound of Metal" - Mikkel E.G. Nielsen 
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Alan Baumgarten

Will Win:

- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Alan Baumgarten

Should Win:

- "The Father" - Yorgos Lampinos

I'm not convinced on this one. I really think "Nomadland" could sweep this one up along its way to a best picture win. I have no evidence of that. But I'm not ruling it out. I'm also hearing a lot of people go "Sound of Metal" here, too. And that would be a fine win, although I personally think sound design is the key to that movie, not film editing. But I could see an argument of that being overlapping with film editing. Or Academy voters assuming as much. My pick, though, goes to what the Eddies chose, that's the American Cinema Editors group. They chose "The Trial of the Chicago 7" as their pick. So that's my prediction. As far as my personal choice, I think much of what "The Father" pulled off was due to the editing. They used some nice tricks to confuse the audience along with Anthony Hopkins. They would pan around and suddenly the setting changed on us. Some say production design should get credit for that. I say both, but leaning more towards editing tricks.

Costume Design:

Nominations:

- "Emma" - Alexandra Byrne 
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Ann Roth 
- "Mank" - Trish Summerville 
- "Mulan" - Bina Daigeler
- "Pinocchio" - Massimo Cantini Parrini 

Will Win:

- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Ann Roth

Should Win:

- "Emma" - Alexandra Byrne

Another one where I'm pretty sure "Ma Rainey" is taking home another Oscar. And again, no complaints from me. But I'll throw my vote towards "Emma," our big period piece of the year. "Mank" would be a good choice, too, with them replicating classic Hollywood. But I don't know, I just always notice the great use of costume design when watching the period pieces. And "Emma" stood out more to me. But hey, if "Ma Rainey" does win, Ann Roth becomes one of the oldest to win an Academy award. She's 89 years old right now. So that's fun! 

Cinematography:

Nominations:

- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Sean Bobbitt
- "Mank" - Erik Messerschmidt 
- "News of the World" - Dariusz Wolski
- "Nomadland" - Joshua James Richards 
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Phedon Papamichael 

Will Win:

- "Nomadland" - Joshua James Richards

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - Dariusz Wolski

All of these are beautifully shot films. And no issues on my end with "Nomadland" taking the victory. "Mank" might be the spoiler if the Academy is taken with the classic Hollywood look. That would be a good win, too. Even if I didn't really enjoy "Mank," I did appreciate the craft and this is one of those things. But when it comes to beautiful, sweeping landscapes, "News of the World" is the easy favorite there. That is a beautiful movie. And it certainly helped that I saw that one on a theater, which many many not have done. And I saw "Nomadland" in a theater, too. Both beautifully shot films. But "News of the World" is far superior in that category. 

Production Design:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - Production Design: Peter Francis; Set Decoration: Cathy Featherstone
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Production Design: Mark Ricker; Set Decoration: Karen O'Hara and Diana Stoughton 
- "Mank" - Production Design: Donald Graham Burt; Set Decoration: Jam Pascale
- "News of the World" - Production Design: David Crank; Set Decoration: Elizabeth Keenan
- "Tenet" - Production Design: Nathan Crowley; Set Decoration: Kathy Lucas

Will Win:

- "Mank" - Production Design: Donald Graham Burt; Set Decoration: Jam Pascale

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - Production Design: David Crank; Set Decoration: Elizabeth Keenan

Many probably don't care or understand the level of conflict and turmoil I went through trying to decide my favorite in this category. I sat there looking at the choices and thought to myself, wow. Those are five great choices. A lot of great work went into creating the sets of these movies. I took out "Tenet" because in my brain the visual effects were what impressed me the most. And "The Father" felt like editing to me. And "Ma Rainey" is really just like a stage play with only two basic sets. So it came down to creating classic Hollywood vs. creating the Old West. I'm going the Old West. But the Oscars are going classic Hollywood. And as I am thinking about it, this is the third Oscar that I'd be giving "News of the World." I think I like that movie even more than I thought. Because I would be fine with Tom Hanks and Helena Zengal in acting. And even best picture would make me happy, even though it missed my personal top 10.

Animated Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "Onward" - Dan Scanlon and Kori Rae (Pixar Animation Studios) 
- "Over the Moon" - Glen Keane, Gennie Rim and Peilin Chou (Pearl Studio)
- "A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon" - Richard Phelan, Will Becher and Paul Kewley (Aardman Animations) 
- "Soul" - Pete Docter (Pixar Animation Studios) 
- "Wolfwalkers" - Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart, Paul Young and Stéphan Roelants (Cartoon Saloon and Mélusine Productions)

Will Win:

- "Soul" - Pete Docter (Pixar Animation Studios)

Should Win:

- "Wolfwalkers" - Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart, Paul Young and Stéphan Roelants (Cartoon Saloon and Mélusine Productions)

Pixar has a chokehold on this category. Especially when they have an original film up for the award. The only original Pixar films to not win while this category was in existence was "Cars" and "Monsters, Inc." And the latter lost because "Shrek" was the opposition. And I suppose they'll get a third loss this year with two originals in the category. They can't both win. But "Soul" will take it because "Onward" felt like it came out 10 years ago and Academy voters have the memory of a goldfish. "Soul" has been sweeping the season, including winning 7 Annie awards. And it's nominated for three Oscars. So there's no question in my mind. But I will shout for joy if "Wolfwalkers" pulls the upset. That movie is excellent and well worth the Apple TV+ subscription to watch it.  And actually, "Soul" might be my No. 5 here, but that's because this category is stacked. All these are really good! 

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):

Nominations:

- "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" - Screenplay by Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman and Lee Kern; Story by Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer and Nina Pedrad
- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller
- "Nomadland" - Written for the screen by Chloé Zhao 
- "One Night in Miami..." - Screenplay by Kemp Powers
- "The White Tiger" - Written for the screen by Ramin Bahrani

Will Win:

- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller

Should Win:

- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller

I just want to take a moment and chuckle at how many credited writers there are for "Borat." I also want to say that I think it's a bit weird that it is considered an adapted screenplay. Sometimes the Oscars are weird. That aside, the favorite to win this category is "Nomadland," so I'm going off on a limb a bit, but it did win the BAFTA for this category. So even if "Nomadland" is the favorite, I don't think it's a runaway favorite. I think "The Father" has a lot of support overall and I'm guessing they're going to want to give it something. And it's definitely the most deserving, in my opinion. There's a lot of things that come together to make "The Father" work so effectively and a very carefully crafted screenplay is certainly of those things. 

Writing (Original Screenplay):

Nominations:

- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Screenplay by Will Bernson and Shaka King; Story by Will Bernson, Shaka King and Keith Lucas
- "Minari" - Written by Lee Isaac Chung
- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell 
- "Sound of Metal" - Screenplay by Darius Marder and Abraham Marder; Story by Darius Marder and Derek Cianfrance
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Written by Aaron Sorkin

Will Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell

Should Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell

"Promising Young Woman" is my favorite movie of all the nominated candidates. Yet me predicting it to win here is more than just hopeful thinking. It does have a lot of support and, like "The Father," I do think they're going to want to reward it somehow. Original Screenplay is the perfect category to do so. It's a phenomenal and rather unique screenplay and has been winning most of these awards. I think this is a much more safe pick than my pick for Adapted Screenplay. If there's an upset, I think it'll be "The Trial of the Chicago 7." And while that would be disappointing to me, Aaron Sorkin is a master with his writing, so that would be fine with me, I suppose. A bit boring, though. "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is tailor-made for awards season, so I'd rather have something more fun and unique win this one. 

Actress is a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Maria Bakalova - "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm"
- Glenn Close - "Hillbilly Elegy"
- Olivia Colman - "The Father"
- Amanda Seyfried - "Mank"
- Yuh-Jung Youn - "Minari"

Will Win:

- Yuh-Jung Youn - "Minari"

Should Win:

- Olivia Colman - "The Father"

At one point this seemed to be up in the air. Both Amanda Seyfried and Maria Bakalova have been talked as potential winners. And I would be in favor of either of them. But in the last month or so, Yuh-Jung Youn has seemingly steamrolled to the lead and now seems to be one of the more safe picks here. And it'll be a fantastic win as she's the grandmother in "Minari" and arguably the best part of the movie. I was going to make her my choice as well, but I just had to go with Olivia Colman. I think "The Father" is a very special movie and, while Anthony Hopkins is front and center to that movie's success as he's the father struggling with dementia, the movie also doesn't work without the daughter struggling to figure out what to do and how to take care of her father. I think she gives a powerful performance that isn't getting talked about as much. And yes, while one of these days we'll have to give Glenn Close her win, it would feel wrong if "Hillbilly Elegy" was the one she got it for. I like that movie more than most, but that win would be a lifetime achievement award. In this case, she's the fifth best performance. 

Actor in a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Sacha Baron Cohen - "The Trial of the Chicago 7"
- Daniel Kaluuya - "Judas and the Black Messiah"
- Leslie Odom, Jr. - "One Night in Miami..."
- Paul Raci - "Sound of Metal"
- Lakeith Stanfield - "Judas and the Black Messiah"

Will Win:

- Daniel Kaluuya - "Judas and the Black Messiah"

Should Win:

- Paul Raci - "Sound of Metal"

Another easy one to call. In fact this might be the easiest of all the acting categories. Daniel Kaluuya has one everything leading up to this and for good reason. He gives an excellent performance as Fred Hampton. If there does happen to be a shocking upset, it'll be because of Lakeith Stanfield getting thrown in here for some reason. Don't get me wrong, I love Lakeith Stanfield in the movie. Maybe more than Daniel Kaluuya. But he's definitely the lead in the movie. Warner Bros. even campaigned for him in lead, which makes this even more strange. And I'm wondering if he might steal a few votes away from Kaluuya and thus cause Paul Raci to win. If that does happen, I will be so happy. Paul Raci's performance is so great. He makes you think that he's part of the deaf community and is also such a warm and welcoming presence. But all that said, I still think Kaluuya is going to win. 

Actress in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Viola Davis - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"
- Andra Day - "The United States vs. Billie Holiday"
- Vanessa Kirby - "Pieces of a Woman"
- Frances McDormand - "Nomadland"
- Carey Mulligan - "Promising Young Woman"

Will Win:

- Viola Davis - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"

Should Win:

- Carey Mulligan - "Promising Young Woman"

Oh goodness. This is the category that's giving me a headache. Me and everyone else who enjoys predicting the Oscars. Usually there's a front-runner that emerges in this categories, but this season has been bonkers as each of the nominees has won something. Except Vanessa Kirby. Which is unfortunate, actually. She might be my second choice behind Carey Mulligan, my personal choice by a long shot. But if Vanessa won the Oscar here, that would seem like a hilariously fitting way to finish this off. I'm not going to predict that, though. If there's anyone who does seem to have a slight lead, it's Viola, but statistics go against that. If she wins, it'll be the exact same winners as the SAG winners. That's only happened seven times in the last 27 years. And if she wins, that's the first time in 23 years that actress and actor came from the same movie. To do that without a best picture nomination is crazy. My gut says Andra Day even though there's not much to back that up. My gut also says Carey isn't going to win, nor do I want to curse her predicting her to do so. And Frances McDormand winning would give her a third Oscar win for acting. That's hard to do and she just barely got her second. So I don't know. I guess I'm going with Viola because everyone loves her, but that's my least confident prediction. 

Actor in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Riz Ahmed - "Sound of Metal"
- Chadwick Boseman - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"
- Anthony Hopkins - "The Father"
- Gary Oldman - "Mank" 
- Steven Yeun - "Minari"

Will Win:

- Chadwick Boseman - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"

Should Win:

- Anthony Hopkins - "The Father"

On the flip side, compared to the actress race, Chadwick Boseman winning seems to be more of a sure thing. Anthony Hopkins did win BAFTA and I think he has a lot more support than some people think. Not that my vote matters, but he also has my support. That's a legendary performance from a legendary actor and is quite easily the best performance of the five. The tricky conversation to have here is that Chadwick winning is more of a way to honor his legacy rather than to reward him for giving the year's best performance by a lead actor. And I have nothing against that. But he didn't give a better performance than Anthony Hopkins and I don't think he'd be winning if he hadn't passed away. In terms of the individual performances, Riz Ahmed might be my No. 2, with Chadwick No. 3. And Steven Yeun being a very close No. 4. Don't hate me for saying that, though. I'm just trying to objectively make a pick. 

Directing:

Nominations:

- Thomas Vinterberg - "Another Round"
- David Fincher - "Mank"
- Lee Isaac Chung - "Minari"
- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland" 
- Emerald Fennell - "Promising Young Woman"

Will Win:

- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland"

Should Win:

- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland"

Another easy pick. Chloé Zhao has been sweeping the director awards this season and in this instance I think that's deserving. I'll fully admit that I'm not the best at judging what makes great directing. I think there's a lot of behind the scenes work that we don't see. But in my mind, what puts it over the top for me, despite "Nomadland" not being my favorite movie, is that most of the actors in the movie are actual Nomads playing versions of themselves on screen. I think it takes great directing to guide a bunch of non-actors to give excellent performances. Maybe that's not what everyone else is thinking, but that's my train of thought. And as much as I love Emerald Fennell and "Promising Young Woman," I think Emerald's screenplay combined with Carey's performance are what does the most heavy lifting. So I'd happily give Chloé the Oscar. 

Best Picture:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - David Parfitt, Jean-Louis Livi and Philippe Carcassonne, Producers (Sony Pictures Classics) 
- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Shaka King, Charles D. King and Ryan Coogler, Producers (Warner Bros. Pictures) 

- "Mank" - Ceán Chaffin, Eric Roth and Douglas Urbanski, Producers (Netflix) 
- "Minari" - Christina Oh, Producer (A24)
- "Nomadland" - Frances McDormand, Peter Sears, Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey and Chloé Zhao, Producers (Searchlight Pictures)

- "Promising Young Woman" - Ben Browning, Ashley Fox, Emerald Fennell and Josey McNamara, Producers (Focus Features) 

- "Sound of Metal" - Bert Hamelinck and Sacha Ben Harroche, Producers (Amazon Studios) 

- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Marc Platt and Stuart Besser, Producers (Netflix) 

Will Win:

- "Nomadland" - Frances McDormand, Peter Sears, Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey and Chloé Zhao, Producers (Searchlight Pictures)

Should Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Ben Browning, Ashley Fox, Emerald Fennell and Josey McNamara, Producers (Focus Features)

And the biggest award of the night is one that seems fairly straightforward compared to past years. "Nomadland" is the favorite and it's been winning most things, so I'm not going to overthink this one. I'll go with the favorite and pick "Nomadland" to win. But the thing that gives me pause is the preferential voting they do for best picture at the Oscars. "Nomadland" might have the most first place votes, but that's not what gets you a best picture win. You have to have a strong number of second and third place votes. It's not the movie that the most people love that wins, it's the movie that has the least amount of hate. Because of that, I could see "The Trial of the Chicago 7" or "Minari" pulling the upset. "Promising Young Woman," my personal favorite, isn't winning. It's too divisive. Plus, my personal choice is always cursed. It never wins. And actually, I'm on a losing streak with picking best picture. So I may have just cursed "Nomadland." If so... good. It's my seventh favorite here, ahead of only "Mank." It's not bad. It's just overrated, in my opinion. There's a lot to love and appreciate, but it just doesn't feel best picture worthy. 

DrogeMiester's Top 10 BEST Movies of 2020

It's time to pick up this blog from off the shelf, dust it off, and fire it up. Because it's time for an end of year list! And what a strange year this is to do an end of year list on. The whole world was thrown off its groove with COVID. And while there are much bigger problems to worry about than movies getting postponed and theaters shutting down, that was nevertheless a major part of my routine that got taken from me. The consequence of that is me not spending much time on this blog in 2020. But I promise that once things go back to normal with the movie industry, I'll get back into the groove of things. Believe it or not, though, movies actually did come out this year. And I did see a lot of them. And not just in the first two months. Yeah, most of the major blockbusters that we were expecting all got shoved into 2021 and beyond, but streaming got thrown in the spotlight, with the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and other services becoming the center of the movie universe. And that let a lot of the smaller, independent films get more attention than they normally would've. All things considered, there are so many disclaimers and stipulations that could be said about how this list ended up, but I'm not going to dive into all of them. You understand. So let's just dive in!   

10- Horse Girl

If you take one look at the title of this film without knowing anything about it, you might think it's a Disney-esque family drama about a girl and her horse, like Secretariat or Seabiscuit. Nope. That couldn't be further from the truth. This is about a shy, awkward young woman who starts having dreams about being abducted by aliens and suddenly begins to think that she's a clone of her grandmother. But is she just going crazy or is she the only sane one around? The movie is so bizarre and up to your own interpretation that it kinda becomes a choose your own adventure thing. Is it a psychological drama about mental illness or is it a sci-fi movie with aliens and time loops, akin to Netflix's series "Dark"? You decide. Although I do think there is a definitive answer. It just requires watching the film, thinking about it, then watching it again to pick up clues that were secretly left behind. It also provides an interesting social experiment. Did you enjoy this movie and try hard to understand it because you knew it was a Sundance film? Or did you toss it aside after the first watch because you assumed it was dumb Netflix original? One's expectations of a film can go a long ways in determining one's level of enjoyment. Just some food for thought for you.   

9- Clouds

The story of Zach Sobiech and his song "Clouds" is one that I have a strong personal connection with. Zach was a high school student who got diagnosed with Osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. In 2012, he learned that the cancer was terminal and only had a few months to live. So he wrote the song "Clouds." Zach passed away in May 2013 and that's when the song went viral. Zach's song and story really meant a lot to me because my younger brother passed away in January 2013. I used the song to help me through a lot of rough times. So when I learned that Disney+ was releasing an original film based on Zach's experiences, I knew I was in for a bit of an emotionally traumatizing ride. And that's exactly what I got. I feel like a bit of a dork because I know the real story well enough to notice that they manipulated the facts a bit to turn this into a teen romance like "The Fault in Our Stars." But the director here does know the family and the screenplay is based on a memoir written by Zach's mother. So the movie doesn't do anything too crazy. What they certainly nail is the emotion behind the story and why it means so much to a lot of people. So if you're in the mood for a good cry, fire up your Disney+ because this is one of the best original films that they've released.  

8- The Invisible Man

When I started to think about creating this list, my initial thought was that I was going to end up with a list full of indie films that no one has heard of. And I was totally fine with that. But then I went through my list of movies that I'd seen and I was like, "Oh yeah, that was this year!" This was one of the final movies to get released before COVID struck in the United States. That means life was normal when I saw this in a theater. That feels like such a long time ago. There were a lot more mainstream horror films that were supposed to come out. And I was really excited for a lot of them. But this is a solid representation of mainstream horror. There's nothing deep or metaphorical about this movie. Just a really solidly executed scare-fest and perfect example of what a remake should do. This wasn't an attempt to recreate the old classic. It takes that premise and does something completely modern and unique with it. A girl's boyfriend fakes his death, figures out a way to become invisible, and terrorizes the poor girl while making everyone else think she's crazy. Much of the horror comes in the idea that the guy could be present in any scene. If more of these Universal Monster remakes were like this, maybe the new Dark Universe would've worked out. 

7- Relic

Of all the movies on this list, I'm predicting that this is the top candidate for movie you've never heard of. This is a Sundance film. One of four of them that made this list and one of two that I actually saw at Sundance as me and a friend decided to purchase tickets to a few showings. And I was really hoping that this would be a movie that would breakout like "The Witch" or "Hereditary," two other indie horror films that initially premiered at Sundance in past years. But then COVID hit and they chose to release this in drive-in theaters during the summer. That means it probably flew right under everyone's radar, but if you like "The Babadook," you need to check this one out, too. Different studio, different filmmakers, but the two movies are pretty much cousins. "The Babadook" is a metaphorical horror film tackling mental illness. "Relic" is a metaphorical horror film that tackles dementia. Perhaps it's not quite as good as "The Babadook," but it's still extremely effective. A movie that you need to check out if you're a fan of good indie horror. Much of the film is vague, leaving it up to your own interpretation. Unless you're fancy like me and the director walks out and explains the whole thing. Perhaps that's cheating, but it did make me appreciate it even more.  

6- Onward

Pixar made two solid original animated films in 2020, "Onward" and "Soul." And while it might be the slightly less popular opinion, for me it was "Onward" that was the better of the two. In fact, at this point in time, "Onward" is my pick for best animated movie of the year. Although I do have to add the disclaimer there that I haven't seen "Wolfwalkers," mainly because I don't have Apple TV+. And I'm waiting until March to get my free trial so I can see a few more Oscar films at the same time. I'll keep you posted on that. Back to "Onward," though, the great thing about Pixar is that they are so good at tugging at the heartstrings. And they're always good at going at it at different angles, meaning all of their films manages to hit someone in the feels in a personal way. "Onward" was that for me. And it goes back to my paragraph about "Clouds." My younger brother passed away in 2013. And even though "Onward" came out seven years later, a Pixar movie about the relationship between two brothers who realize how important they are to each other completely wrecked me. Plus, on top of that, it was a super nerdy film with a lot of fantasy and adventure. Maybe that caused it to fly over some people's heads. But that's OK. Pixar has something for everyone, right?  

5- I'm Thinking of Ending Things

Going into this movie, the title made me assume this was a movie about suicide. I braced myself and dove in. Only to find out that the title refers to the girl thinking of ending things... with her boyfriend. It's simple at first. They've been dating for a month or so and they're finally going to meet his parents. He thinks things are going very well, but she's a lot more unsure about it. But lest you think this is some sort of simple romance, this is a Charlie Kaufman film. His niche is writing or directing challenging films that make you think. He's probably most well known for writing "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," if you want a film comparison. But this one starts to get weirder and weirder until at the end it has gone completely bonkers and off the rails. It's one of those movies where you have to immediately dive into internet theories about what it all means, spend some time thinking about it, then watch it again. Each viewing gives you more clues about what it is until eventually the movie completely transforms into something much different. Once it connects, the full picture of it is quite the amazing work of art. And it's on Netflix, so multiple viewings is very doable. Just beware, if you prefer your movies to be simple, this is a movie to stay clear of.

4- The Half of It

Boy loves Girl A. Girl A doesn't acknowledge Boy. Boy goes to Girl B for advice on how to win the heart of Girl A. Typical teen romance, right? One might expect Boy to eventually fall in love with Girl B and for them to live happily ever after. But that's not what this movie does. It subverts your expectations for this type of teen romance and instead has Girl B also falling in love with Girl A, while she's giving Boy advice on how to win over Girl A. Girl A is the popular, attractive type. Girl B is the nerdy, unattractive type, who not only has to deal with her lack of confidence, but also the pressure of what her family and society will think if she comes out as being attracted to girls. Thus this is a very real and messy teen romance film that included my favorite quote of the year: "Love isn't patient and kind and humble. Love is messy and horrible and selfish... and bold. It's not finding your perfect half. It's trying and reaching and failing. Love is being willing to ruin your good painting for the chance at a great one." As this is another Netflix film, once I heard that line, I paused the film and wrote it down in my notes on my phone. And I rarely do that. But this is truly a special teen romance film that is superior to most. And that quote is one that I will always remember and refer to.  

3- Kajillionaire 

The third of four films on this list to come from Sundance. And the second of two on this list that I actually saw at Sundance, the other being "Relic." For a while I thought this was going to be my No. 1 film of the year. The Sundance experience combined with a film I loved and a movie industry that screeched to a halt due to COVID nearly resulted in this winning by default. But further thought this week resulted in me putting it at No. 3, which is still really good. This is a quirky comedy about a paranoid, compulsive family of three who commit a bunch of small cons to make a living. The result is their 26-year-old daughter being highly uncultured when it comes to the world around her. In my initial Sundance viewing, I was completely caught off guard with the humor and the quirkiness because I literally had no idea what to expect. Upon a deeper exploration a year later, it's the drama and emotion that stood out. The daughter develops a desire of wanting to be cared for, then feels quite empty when she realizes that her parents refuse to satisfy that desire. Thus the movie becomes extremely well-rounded. This came out in select theaters in September following its January Sundance premier, then to PVOD in October. You can rent it for $6 right now. I think that's worth it!

2- Da 5 Bloods

This is the choice that I surprised myself the most with in terms of how high up it wound up being on my list. But when I compared it to all the other options, there just simply wasn't much question in regards to how superior it is to many of the other 2020 films. This comes from Spike Lee, a filmmaker who most definitely is not afraid to express exactly what he is feeling. Most of his films are very socially relevant and speak to issues that he is passionate about. I'm not a Spike Lee expert by any means, but I don't think I've heard of a casually entertaining Spike Lee film. That's not what he does. With "Da 5 Bloods," the topic at hand is the Vietnam War, specifically the experiences of some black Vietnam War vets years later in their life. They not only have to deal with racism, but also the negative reactions from other towards people who served in the war. There's a lot of conflicting emotions for them and a lot of trauma that has built up for years. The plot follows them returning to their old war grounds to search for treasure that they hid. I'll admit that it's a bit slow to begin, but once it hits, it hits hard. The entire second half of the film left me speechless in a way that perhaps only Spike Lee can accomplish. It's the type of film that sticks with you long after you watch it.   

1- Promising Young Woman 

And here we are. My award for the best movie of the bizarre year that was 2020 goes to "Promising Young Woman." This is the fourth Sundance film on this list. I didn't see it at Sundance, but I did spend 11 months listening to people rant and rave about it. After finally seeing shortly after its Christmas release, I was left stunned. Carrying the whole film is a legendary performance by Carey Mulligan, who is left broken and scarred by a past I will not reveal because that's kinda the point. What happened to her to cause her to drop out of a potentially successful career path in order to go on a revenge tour towards those who wronged her? And lest you think this is going where you think it's going, this movie will spend its entire runtime blindsiding you at every turn. And that's all I'll say. My only critique is that it leans a little too much on shock value at times, but it was rather effective in the moment. "Gone Girl" is my movie comparison. Both are extremely effective, female-led thrillers that cause your jaw to hit the floor. I haven't watched all the Oscar contenders. Some haven't yet been released due to special Oscar rules this year, but at the moment I hope they shower this with all the awards. At the very least, give Carey Mulligan her well-deserved Oscar.

Tenet Review

If you didn't get the news, theaters are now open in many places around the world and new movies have started to sneak their way into theaters. And while the first couple movies I've reviews since the reopening, "Unhinged" and "The New Mutants," have felt more like sacrificial lambs thrown into the fire, "Tenet" feels like the first real movie in theaters. Or, rather, the first big movie that's taking a risk by being released. I can guarantee you that every studio is closely monitoring the progress of "Tenet" right now to see if it can actually earn money at a time when not all theaters are open yet and those that are open are working at a limited capacity with lots of restrictions in place. And even if theaters didn't have these restrictions, are people ready to come back to theaters? So many questions surrounding this release that will set a precedent going forward. With Warner Bros. themselves also being next up to bat with "Wonder Woman 1984" in early October, are they going to stay put there? What about the likes of "Black Widow," "Soul" and "No Time to Die" in November? All of that will depend on how "Tenet" performs this month. And if you feel safe enough to go out and support it, "Tenet" definitely has my stamp of approval as a movie that deserves to be seen.

You might think that of course this movie has my stamp of approval. It's a Christopher Nolan movie! Unless you've been around the block for a bit. While I genuinely love Nolan as a filmmaker, as shown by me naming "Inception" as my top film of the 2010s, he's been on a tad bit of a losing streak since "Inception." While "The Dark Knight" is also my favorite superhero movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" gets a bit worse every time I watch it. "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" weren't that great, either. "Interstellar" had a solid first two acts, but falls apart in the final act. And "Dunkirk" was a nice idea for about 30 minutes, but then I got really bored. But if you're a filmmaker and those three movies are the worst that you've done, I'd say you're still doing a pretty good job. Even the best slip up every once in a while. With "Tenet," I was really hoping that it would be the movie to bring him back to top-notch filmmaking. And while I would initially say that it accomplished that, there's also a whole lot to process with this movie. Like many of Nolan's movies, it's something that requires repeat viewings to fully understand. And I've only seen it once. So I have to give the disclosure that I don't yet feel qualified to give it a perfect analysis, nor am I sure when I'm going to be at that point.

What is the movie about? Well, that's the other difficult thing. First off, this is the type of movie where it's best to know as little as possible going in. So even writing a review is a tricky. It's the type of movie where I tell you that it's good, so go and see and we'll discuss afterwards. And I totally recommend that. I'm going to keep things as vague and spoiler-free as I can. But it might be best to just close this and come back and read after you've seen the movie. The other reason why it's a difficult thing to describe is because the plot itself so layered and complex. The most simple way to put is that one timeline is going backwards and another timeline is going forwards. And certain people are trying to stop a certain thing from happening before the world goes kaboom. If you've seen the trailers, you've seen examples of this. They are shooting a gun, but the bullet unshoots and goes back into the gun or they're driving down the road and the car in front of them car rolls around and uncrashes. Why is all of this happening? Well, they spend the whole first half of the movie dumping scene after scene of exposition on you. Most of it bounced right off my brain and into oblivion. I want to go back and watch it, but with subtitles so I can do better at remembering. 

The reason why I had a hard time remembering everything that they were saying was partly due to a thing that a lot of people have brought up in their reviews. The sound mixing is a bit off on this one. They'll be talking in a room and suddenly the score starts coming on, signifying that something important is being said or something is about to happen, but the score goes a bit too loud so that you literally don't know what is being said. You want to rewind it and listen closer, but you're in a theater, so you can't. But since the sound design has caused you to miss that part of the conversation, when things get back to normal, your brain just wanders off because you feel like you just walked in during the middle of a conversation where the first part that you missed was vital to what is being said. And yeah, that's a problem. But the other issue here is that I think my brain just wasn't prepared. I tried to pay attention, but it's also like when you're in a lecture and your professor gets so carried away with some tangent or concept that is just really beyond your ability to be able to understand. So your mind wanders for two seconds and that immediate disconnect derails the whole thing. You no longer have the ability to catch up, so you give up and stop trying, which leads to a really rough lecture.

I've delved through some YouTube comments of reviews or other internet discussions where a lot of people said that this ruined the experience for them. I don't want to conclude that off of just one showing. Just because I didn't understand the professor's lecture, doesn't make it a bad lecture. Or maybe my neighbor was talking too loud and I didn't hear part of it. That's also not the professor's fault. But with this analogy, the professor has the lecture recorded and posted online. I can go do my homework and maybe take a practice test, then go back and listen to the lecture again and perhaps it'll make a lot more sense. And that's my thoughts with "Tenet." I feel like there's some excellent stuff in here that could make this one of the most mindblowing movies I've ever seen. "Could" being the key word here. I just don't know. But I got enough out of it the first time around that I feel like a second viewing... or a third... or a fourth... or a fifth... or a sixth... is really going to cause something to connect and that will be the ultimate viewing experience. This is not a new thing for Nolan. He likes to challenge his audience and not babysit them or hold their hands to guide them to where he wants them to go. I really appreciate that. The result is a movie that keeps on giving. 

But for a first viewing experience, it's really challenging. They'll be talking and talking and talking and talking. Then we'll jump to the next scene where they start talking and talking and talking and talking. And then they'll start talking and walking and talking and talking. Then a thing happens, and I was like, oh that's cool. But then they'll start talking and talking and talking and talking. By this point, my brain has been on brain overload and starts shutting down. Suddenly I panic because I feel like I missed part of the movie. And then a lot of things start happening and I'm like, crap. I failed because I have no idea why they are doing these things that they are doing. And then I got really nervous because the thoughts arose in my brain that I might walk away from this movie being disappointed. And I can't handle the online pressure of having to write another less than stellar review of a Christopher Nolan film. But then we finally arrive to "the moment." Characters are making decisions and these decisions start impacting things from the past. Suddenly my mouth is gaping wide open and I'm being thoroughly entertained by these things and really having my mind blown by these fascinating concepts that Nolan has decided to throw together into one film.

And if you're reading this review without having actually seen this movie, this might be the strangest review you've read from me because I just spent paragraphs talking about a whole lot of nothing and it probably hasn't helped you much. But it is what it is. When I saw the movie Monday, my initial post on Facebook was that this is the most Nolany film I've ever seen. The man has spent two decades now perfecting his craft and this is where he decided to take everything he's ever done and create this big, epic piece of art that combines everything he's learned and experimented with. And if you think "Inception" or "The Prestige" were complex and difficult to understand, "Tenet" makes those movies look like an episode of "Sesame Street." There are so many moving pieces and intricate parts with layers and layers detailed concepts and a look at time that I've not seen before. Now this doesn't necessarily make the movie better than his previous work. But it definitely is his most complex film. It's his most detailed and intricate work of art that feels like he's been building to for his whole career. As you can tell, it's a giant puzzle that I feel I've only scratched the surface on. I'm excited at the idea of being to continue to learn new things from it for years to come.

Again, I don't want to get too caught up in any negatives here until I've had a chance to digest it a bit more and explore it's world again, but I think that one thing that might hold it back a touch is its slight disconnect with the characters and their motivations behind everything. This feels like a movie that gets so caught up with its high concepts and technical marvels that it kinda forgets about some of the filmmaking basics such as characters. I mean there's a lot of them, but John David Washington is the lead role and they didn't even bother to give him a name. He's just "the protagonist" on the cast list. You don't really get to know who he is or some of the struggles he's going through. He's just a vehicle to move these concepts forward. And he meets Robert Pattinson at some point. He's actually given a name. But we don't know much about him, either. They begin a strong friendship and their characters go interesting places. But I don't feel there's much emotional depth to them in comparison to Leo's character in "Inception" or all the deep, rich themes between Batman, Joker, and Harvey Dent in "The Dark Knight." And because of this, neither of them is given the opportunity to really shine like they have in recent films, even though both of them do a solid job. 

The main conflict comes more with the main girl they meet along the way, played by Elizabeth Debicki. It's her husband, played by Kenneth Branagh, that is the antagonist of the film and there's some emotion there. But when the supporting characters have more emotional depth than either of the main characters, that might be a slight problem. But I don't want to get too caught up on that. The real star of this movie are these high concepts that he builds. Messing around with the timeline is Nolan's specialty with movies like "The Prestige," "Inception," "Memento" and even his last two movies, "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk." And the idea here in "Tenet" with one timeline going forwards and the other going backwards is genuinely fascinating. And I want to get into it more, but that part I don't want to touch too much because it's the last act of the film that really shines here and even suggesting that makes me feel like I've said too much. Maybe this is a movie that I will revisit at some point on this blog. I don't know yet. But I definitely am excited to revisit this movie itself. A grade seems a bit foolish to give because that's definitely going to change, but a tentative 9/10 seems right, with the potential of it being in the top half of my Nolan rankings.  

The New Mutants Review

It's hard for me to believe that "The New Mutants" is actually a real movie that came out in theaters. I even purchased a ticket and watched it with my own eyes. For a long time I was convinced that the movie was a myth and that I'd never get to see it. In fact, in a strange way I'm almost disappointed that it finally came out because being in a constant of waiting for it was kinda fun. Every time it got closer to coming out, it got pushed back again. Continuing to follow it was almost like a game of a donkey chasing a carrot that's tied to a string above. But the donkey finally caught the carrot. So now what are we supposed to do?It's like when Leo finally won his Oscar. What's the internet supposed to talk about now? For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, the first trailer for "The New Mutants" was published on YouTube on October 13, 2017. It's actual U.S. release date ended up being August 28, 2020. Josh Boone and Knate Lee, the screenwriters for the movie, with Boone also being the director, started working on this back in 2015, shortly after the release of Boone's "The Fault in Our Stars." The initial release date was April 2018. So yeah, this movie has been on quite the journey and Disney finally releasing it feels like something done out of obligation.

The idea behind this movie is one that I was actually intrigued by. It was advertised as a horror film within the X-Men universe. That's a brilliant idea. We've had so many superhero movies come out as of late that if studios are going to keep releasing them, which they are most definitely planning on doing, they need to come up with ideas as to how to make the genre fresh instead making the same three movies over and over a thousand times. Out of all the genres that have been played around with in regards to superhero movies, the horror genre is one that hasn't really been explored much. But when you think about it, it's an idea that can be done quite easily, especially when it comes to mutants with strange powers that they're not used to. So I was excited for this when I saw the trailer back in October 2017, nearly three years ago. But yeah, then it started to keep getting postponed, which always has me nervous. Fox pushed it back twice, the first time from April 2018 to February 2019, then again to August 2019. Reportedly it was because they wanted to reshoot the movie and make it scarier. Lean more on the horror element. The last two times it got postponed wasn't the movie's fault. Disney bought Fox, then shuffled their whole schedule. Then the pandemic happened.

Now in watching this movie today, this feels like an odd piece of cinematic history and really is a sign that Fox had no idea what they were doing with the X-Men. They never really had much of a direction to begin with. The first two X-Men movies were a huge success, but then they crashed it into a brick with with X3. Then they tried to reboot things by telling the origin stories of all the characters. But after everyone hated "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," they did a full on reboot with "X-Men: First Class." That was going good as well, until they again crashed it into a brick wall with "X-Men: Apocalypse." In the meantime, they started throwing all sorts of things at the wall to see what stuck. They scored huge with the likes of "Logan" and "Deadpool," but failed mightily with "Dark Phoenix." But when seen as a whole, Fox's X-Men universe can only been seen as a giant mess, even though some of the entries are pretty solid. And "The New Mutants" really just feels like one of Fox's backup plans that could've worked had they actually committed to it. But Fox never committed to anything, which is why Disney now owns them. And Disney definitely didn't want this, which is why I believe they're using this as experimental bait to see if people will show up to theaters again during COVID.

Through all of this, I feel the most bad for director Josh Boone, who seems like he was personally committed to this idea of his, but was never given much of an opportunity by Fox or Disney to do anything with it. He is a competent director. I liked "The Fault in Our Stars" back in 2014. And I also believe that "The New Mutants" is a competently made film with some great ideas. I think the biggest flaw is that Fox has been so clueless with the X-Men that we've seen the premise of a mutants origin story done in just about every movie they made. I'm ready to take the next step and see where a team of mutants can actually go, but Fox could never get that plane off the ground too far before it crashed back down and they had to keep starting over. So here we are. Another mutants origin story. But given the challenge of having to do this restart yet again, Josh Boone did a pretty good job. The horror element gives it a unique perspective of it being a darker, more eerie take on it with a lot of mystery and unanswered questions involved. In fact, this is a very small and isolated film. Outside the occasional flashback or vision, the movie only has six characters. Our five mutants locked in an abandoned lab with their doctor that's supposedly there to help them with their powers.

With this small, isolated setup in mind, I think the movie effectively built towards an interesting climax. Our lead mutant is a young girl named Danielle Moonstar, played by Native American actress Blu Hunt. In the beginning of the movie, she awakes to her little town or village being attacked by a bear demon thing. Her father rescues her and tries to save the day, but everything gets destroyed and everyone dies but her. Next thing she knows, she wakes up in this facility where someone has found her and discovered she is a mutant, but they haven't figured out the extent of her powers. So after this traumatic experience, Danielle, or Dani, has to figure out how to live with these four other mutants, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, Maise Williams, Charlie Heaton and Henry Zaga, with Alice Braga playing their doctor. I think this is a solid group of mutants and the movie takes its time to introduce us to these characters, none of whom seem to want to be there, but all of whom are fairly interesting. We slowly get to learn about the backgrounds of all of them and why they are there and it adds more of a connective link to our cast. And I think all five actors in this do a great job of trying to bring their characters to life. This is the beginning of something pretty solid.

Which is why the whole thing is disappointing because you know it's not going to go anywhere. Josh Boone wanted this to be a trilogy when he initially started working on it. I would've loved to see that come about. Anya Taylor-Joy, Maise Williams, and Charlie Heaton are three up-and-coming actors who deserved to be part of something bigger and use this as another stepping stone for their careers. I didn't know Blue Hunt or Henry Zaga before seeing this movie, but I was impressed with both. But yet when the studio doesn't care about the property and the studio itself gets sold in the middle of production to another studio that doesn't care, it's hard to get to excited about anything here. It's like watching the pilot episode to a TV series that you know already got canceled. The emotional weight of a pilot episode or an origin story is not there when you know going in that you're never going to see these characters again. The movie actually does tie into the X-Men. In fact, part of the plot has to do with these mutants thinking they're being trained to be X-Men. I don't know if this is a spoiler, but there's also ties to the Essex Corporation, which was teased at the end of Apocalypse and in other places, but has now been completely abandoned because Disney is going to completely start over with mutants.

As is, the movie is fine on its own. Like I said, there's a lot of good setup here. A grew to care about the characters and enjoyed learning about their backstories. Blue Hunt and Maise Williams develop a relationship that's a solid core to the film. And I do think the horror setup works decently enough. I wish they would've leaned into that a bit more as it never evolves beyond simply being a bit creepy and strange at times. This is not a scary film and it's more of a superhero action flick than a true horror film. Part of the premise does involve the main characters having to relive their worst nightmares, which starts chasing them down. If that sounds like "IT," that's because it kind of is, but the sequences, which I did enjoy, reminded me more of a "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark," which was a solid PG-13 horror film from last year. So if you combine "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" with an X-Men origin story, you have "The New Mutants." It's perfectly acceptable. And the ending battle with the demon bear is a really entertaining. It's just disappointing because this is never going to go anywhere, so it was hard for me to really care. But hey, if Disney wants to prove me wrong and bring these characters back, I won't complain. My grade for "The New Mutants" is a 7/10. 

Unhinged Review

Oh hey look! It's a movie review from this blog! This is my first review since "Onward" in March and first post of any sort since May. I brainstormed a lot of things in my head as to what to do during COVID months, but ultimately I wound up doing nothing and now I'm feeling all sorts of rusty. But the movie theaters opened up, so it's time to get back into the groove of things. Now the first thing I'll say is that if you don't feel like venturing out to the theaters again, I totally understand. I spend a lot of time hiding in my own little corner so that I don't have to deal with people who aren't being careful. And for some of you, your local theaters aren't even open yet. But in my area they are and I've been dying to have some sort of semblance of normalcy return to my life, so I've snuck out to the theaters a couple of times already. The first important thing that I will note is that I was impressed with all of the things that my local Cinemark is doing to keep people safe. Theater capacity is limited. Masks are required. They do a lot of sanitizing and cleaning. There's a whole bunch of stuff implemented. I felt safe. Again, if you don't feel safe, that's totally fine. But either way, I'm going to start getting some reviews out for you again. And we start out with one that, well... not the most optimal choice. 

On the one hand, it's kinda disappointing that my first theatrical experience in nearly six months was such a bumpy ride. But on the other hand, it makes total sense that this is the movie to be the guinea pig. "Unhinged" is a road rage thriller from distributor Soltice Studios. Never heard of them? Well, join the club. They're a brand new distribution company and this is their first release. And in a normal year, this is the type of thriller that comes out and is nearly dead on arrival. An unrecognizable studio. A no-name director. A horribly written movie that makes no sense. Critics would trash it. And it wouldn't make any money. But hey, Soltice Studios took advantage of the situation to stake its claim as the first new theatrical release and that got it attention. Smart move, I'd say. It opened to $4 million, which is normally not a great total, but as one of the only options for people who want to venture out, it's bound to have long legs, which is probably closer to the type of business we're going to see. Small openings and a long theatrical life. It might be like back in the 80s when the box office was a lot more backloaded and movies just stayed in theaters for forever. And hey, if this ended up as a financial disaster, no tears shed. Might as well experiment with the trashy films, right?

But OK, the one thing that this movie has going for it is that it stars Russell Crowe. Everyone loves Russell Crowe, right? He seems like a very nice guy and he's a great actor. Just don't let him sing in your movie. But this time around, he's very much not a nice guy. In fact, he's a crazy, evil psychopath that murders his ex-wife and her new boy thing that she left him for and burns down their house. That's how this movie opens. It definitely sets the stage for what's coming next. He's a ruthless, soulless monster that's full of rage and out for vengeance. And is somehow able to not get caught, despite being very non-subtle in his approach. So when poor young Rachel is just having a really bad day and honks at a guy who doesn't move when the light turns green, something I would personally do every single time, that guy is Russell Crowe and he decides to give her the worst day of her life. And that's our movie. When I say Rachel is "young," I mean 30s. A young mother. Going through a divorce. Accidentally sleeps in. Loses her best client. Gets stuck in traffic taking her teenage boy to school. So she just kinda loses it when Russell Crowe doesn't move at the light. I don't blame her, really. But this vendetta this guy decides to hold against her for this act is a bit baffling.

I think the biggest problem with this movie is a conflict of tone. The general premise is that of a slasher flick, essentially. A psychopath killer is hunting down this girl and killing people in the process. I mean, it's not a horror film. I'd definitely classify it as thriller. But it has the slasher vibe to it where the intensity of the film is hinged on a killer wandering around town killing people. And if it were to own up to it's absurd status as a B-level thriller that's just out to be a gory bit of fun for a certain, then maybe it could get a pass. But it doesn't own up to that. The movie takes itself super seriously. After the opening scene of "The Man," as he is credited (he doesn't get a name in the movie) killing his ex-wife and her new man, then burning the house, we get this weird montage during the opening credits full of stock footage of road rage stuff, as if the movie is trying to tell us the dangers of road rage and how violent this country has become because of that. Then it proceeds to be such a serious movie as if the writers and director made this movie to give us all a warning that if we're not careful, something like this might happen to us, too. So if the movie is going to decide to take itself super seriously, then I have to return the favor and give it a serious review instead of kicking back and enjoying. 

In giving it a serious review, the whole thing is absolutely absurd. Our main girl Rachel starts us off by making every wrong decision in the book. Not only is she completely incompetent in her daily routine as if she hasn't figured out how to do this thing called life yet, but everything leading up her run-in with this guy just makes your eyes roll. My favorite part is when she reveals to her son that she disabled her lock screen on her phone, then later leaves it in the car while she's going into the gas station, while also leaving her car unlocked. So of course that means the guy steal her phone and use it as leverage to make her follow his every command. That's the type of stupidity it comes to with this writing. On the flip side, the man deciding to traumatize this random woman makes zero sense, either. I mean, if we set him up as a ruthless psychopath, it doesn't make much sense that he would be so broken and fragile that he would completely lose his mind when someone honks at him at a green light. I mean, if we're going to set this thing up, then we've got to come up with a better inciting incident that would make for a more believable case of road rage. Give this guy a better reason to chase after a random civilian that would make for an actual intense plot.

To this movie's credit, though, it's not all a terrible mess. Russell Crowe makes for a rather terrifying presence. He pulls off crazy psychopath rather well. When he's getting angry at the girl and chasing her around, he does make you rather nervous. But then he puts on his nice face when he's walking in to "meet" the girl's friends, which makes for an intense moment because you know that this isn't going to end well. So I give him credit there for trying to make a good villainous presence. It's not his fault that he says the words the script told him to say or do the things that the script asked him to do. And our main girl Rachel is played competently by Caren Pistorius. Her making every dumb decision in the book wasn't the fault of the actress. Again, this all comes down to a screenplay that is just horrendously bad. But had said screenplay been good, the movie could've worked with Russell Crowe and Caren Pistorius both doing a fine job. And on a technical scale, the movie is competently made and filmed. The chase sequences are good. When action sequences were needed, they were choreographed and filmed well. So there's a lot of building blocks in place that could've made this a really good thriller. But when the core of the film is just such an awful stench, none of that really matters.

So yeah, like I said, this is a strange return to the theaters. And I could definitely see in hindsight that there's absolutely no risk involved here in making this be the first movie for people to return to. If it fails, it was a bad movie anyways. If it succeeds, then money was made off of a bad film that otherwise would've done nothing. But hey, it was my ceremonious return to the theaters and it was fun being back. And maybe it was also good that this was my first review back because there's other movies that are certain to get more attention when I write a review of them. I can use this thing as practice so that I'm more in the groove when better movies that people will more interested in my opinion of. But all that aside, if you're looking for a movie to go see in theaters, by the time I finally got this typed and submitted, there are other options. We have "The New Mutants," "Tenet" and "The Personal History of David Copperfield" that I'm certain will be better than this one. The latter two I will be seeing soon and the first one I have indeed seen. Or you can go see classics such as "Raiders of the Lost Arc," "Jurassic Park," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Goonies," all of which have been hanging around in theaters as place holders. "Unhinged" for me gets a 5/10. 

Streaming Reviews: The Clone Wars, Tiger King, The Chosen

Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Season 7

I’ve learned in my limited experience with Star Wars TV shows that Star Wars is a thing that may belong best in series form rather than on the big screen. Or at least I think that’s the direction I think Disney should go here. Because how many people do you see angrily complaining that “The Mandalorian” or “The Clone Wars” ruined their lives? At the very least, it would give me a breath of fresh air because the number of people hate watching an entire show that they haven’t enjoyed from day one is a lot lower than the butthurt fanboys who feel obligated to terrorize and yell at every director who attempts to do a Star Wars thing on the big screen. And if there are people hate watching a series just so they can look cool to all of their so-called internet friends, then what in the frack are you doing with your life? That’s a lot of wasted time on something that you don’t enjoy.

OK, rant against Star Wars fans out of the way, “The Clone Wars” isn’t something that I jumped on board with right away. Not that I had anything against it. I just never got around to it. I binged through the first three seasons a couple summers ago. Got stuck in the mud at the beginning of season four, then finished seasons four through seven this past month. I timed that really well because I didn’t have to wait six years to see the final season.

In regards to said final season, I will say I was finding it rather strange that they allotted themselves just 12 short episodes to wrap this thing up, then spent most of their time dragging their feet with story arcs that meant nothing to the overall plot. Because, yeah, this season is split into three sections. There’s three different story arcs, split evenly into four episodes each. The first four are classic “Clone Wars” stuff. Fun and enjoyable. But it didn’t feel like “final season” material. The second four episodes are even more confusing because, while we do learn what Ahsoka was doing following her falling out with the Jedi in season five, it was a story arc that really meant nothing and had little emotional impact.

But those last four episodes is why we’re all here. I’m a bit confuzzled as to why we didn’t start there and expand that specific story out into 12 episodes, but it is what it is. Without saying too much, these are the four episodes that connect “Clone Wars” to “Revenge of the Sith,” then continue through “Sith” by showing us what was happening to Ahsoka while Anakin was busy killing younglings and all the Jedi were busy dying by the cheapest cop-out in cinema history with Order 66. Yeah, I have my issues with “Revenge of the Sith.” It’s the best of the prequels, but it’s also extremely rushed. Mr. Lucas was so busy playing with his fancy computers in the first two movies that he ran out time to tell a proper story. Instead of expanding to five or six movies, he used Order 66 as a plot devise to consolidate three movie’s worth of content into about 10 minutes, simply because he ran out of time to finish the plot naturally.

Yet the thing that is so impressive here is that “Clone Wars” has this magic ability to take a big pile of dung and transform it into a beautiful treasure. Watching Ahsoka deal with all the clones during Order 66 was beyond captivating. And it led to a finale that was some of the best work I’ve seen in television. Like, seriously, the final 5-10 minutes of “Clone Wars” season seven is perhaps one of the best moments in Star Wars history. Movies or TV.

Tiger King

I mean, what is there to really say about “Tiger King” at this point? It’s a docuseries that had perhaps the most impeccable timing. The filmmakers filmed it over the course of several years, captured the most bizarre story we’ve seen, and just happened to release it right at the beginning of a global pandemic where we all have nothing else to do but sit in our rooms and watch Netflix. It might be hard to capture lighting in a bottle twice like this, but that’s an excellent formula for completely taking over the internet. There’s so much “Tiger King” chatter that I’ve started to see those memes pop up that say, “I have not watched a single episode of ‘Tiger King.’ I bet you can’t repost this.” As if that’s a proud statement. To which I reply, “What in the frack are you waiting for? Check it out!”

Because, yeah, the most fascinating thing about “Tiger King” is that it’s so insanely bizarre, yet there’s no one to really latch onto. Usually documentaries have some sort of angle they’re pushing or agenda they have. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. They go in with a purpose and they create a narrative based on a story they want to tell. I don’t know exactly what was in the heads of the filmmakers behind “Tiger King,” but it seemed to be more along the lines of “This is a weird group of people. Let’s start filming and see what happens.” And they hit a goldmine. On one side you have a lady who probably killed her husband and spends her time hypocritically preaching “Save the animals!” when she is in fact using them for pretty much the same exact purposes as the others. And on the other hand you have a crazy redneck who owns a bunch of big cats that he should not have and got caught red-handed in his attempt to kill his lady rival of his who continues to ruin his life. And in the middle, you have a whole bunch of other weirdos who just add to the wonkiness.

And that’s the beauty of it all. Everyone’s crazy. There’s no “hero” or “protagonist” to root for. And the story just devolves into madness, proving that truth is stranger than fiction. And now we have three separate “Tiger King” shows in the works? Yeah, they’re going to milk this for all it’s worth and I’m not sure that’s a good thing, although the idea of Nic Cage starring as Joe Exotic in a “Tiger King” series is highly amusing to me. But even if we all get super sick of “Tiger King” when all is said and done, it doesn’t change the fact that this one of the strangest and most bizarre documentaries I’ve seen. Definitely worth the watch.

The Chosen

No good transition from Joe Exotic to Jesus, but “The Chosen” is a series I’ve been hearing all sorts of buzz about, yet I was oddly hesitant to jump in and experience it. And most of that has everything to do with the studio that is distributing it. VidAngel. I’ll make this short because I could go on a long rant about how VidAngel drives me crazy and how I want nothing to do with them. The thing is, they shout from the rooftops about their whole focus is family-friendly content and that they want to bring filtered content to people who don’t want all the trash that Hollywood includes, yet they have a bad case of not following the rules. Do you know why VidAngel completely exploded? No, it’s not because of filtered content. It’s because they provided a super cheap streaming service with all sorts of movies that you couldn’t find on any streaming platform. I mean, why spend $5 renting a movie on YouTube or Google Play when you could rent it on VidAngel for $1? They had a huge section of movies that they labeled something to the effect of “movies you can’t find anywhere else.”

Yet I’m the bad guy when I looked at their business model and thought it was a big load of horse manure. All the studios rightfully brought them to court for breaking every copyright law in the book, yet all they could do the whole lawsuit was play the victim card by claiming the studios were shutting them down because the studios don’t want filtered content. No, that’s not true at all. I mean, Disney was their biggest enemy, yet Disney is all about family-friendly content. It’s just that you gotta play by the rules. Like it or not, the studios own the films and they reserve the right to say whether or not someone can stream them or not. And yet again, I’m the bad guy among my friends when I claim I’m with the studios the whole time. What VidAngel was doing was 100 percent illegal. And that’s why the end of the very long lawsuit resulted in a jury ordering VidAngel to pay $62 million of damages just this past June.

So forgive me for being hesitant to support anything that VidAngel does. There’s kinda some bitter feelings there. Lucky for me I discovered there’s a free app where you can watch “The Chosen” without paying a dime. And even though they try to guilt trip you into paying for each episode, all guilt wipes away when I see the VidAngel logo in the beginning of the credits. But hey, you didn’t just come here to listen to me rant about VidAngel. You wanted my thoughts on “The Chosen.” And honestly, even with VidAngel aside, I wasn’t 100 percent sold on “The Chosen.” It’s a bit of a weird thing to put into words because I consider myself a devout Christian. It’s just that there’s such an oversaturation of movies and shows that have done so that you have to forgive me for wondering what this one will bring to the table that the other 156,987 haven’t already done. If you know what I mean.

What I will say about this that I really liked is how authentic it felt. The casting of Jesus himself is probably the best part of this series. Most other shows about Jesus do a great job of making everyone else look Middle Eastern, but Jesus often looks like he came straight from the United States or The U.K. I mean, I get it. They want to make him stand out a bit because he’s the Son of God. But some of his biggest opponents at the time didn’t buy into him because he was one of them who was now claiming to be the Messiah. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah “hath no form of comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2 KJV). Yet often people make fun of movies about Jesus for portraying him as the “Hot Jesus.” See the issue there? Yet in this series, Jesus looked so much like everyone else that even I had a second take when he first showed up. Was that really Jesus?

The other thing I really liked is how young the apostles were. Oftentimes Peter, James, and John are portrayed as old men. Or at least men in their 40s or 50s. Yet in this series they looked like they were in their late 20s or early 30s. That’s also genius. Because you really see the naivety of their characters. Peter especially. He’s so gung ho about following Jesus, yet he has absolutely no idea what he was doing. He has all the heart and all the spirit, but he’s a child in the gospel. Jesus has to spend a lot of time teaching him and being patient with his mistakes. And when Peter’s appearance is more like a very young man who just grew into adulthood rather than a seasoned adult with decades of experience as a husband and father, it’s a lot more believable. I also like how much Peter’s brother Andrew is used in the show. He’s one of the apostles in the New Testament, but is rarely mentioned.

As far as the rest of the series goes, it’s perfectly acceptable. They spend a lot of time on the early stages of character development. And that’s certainly a positive on many fronts. But it’s also a slight hindrance because by the end of the first season, we’ve barely progressed the plot forward. Jesus’ first public miracle, changing the water to wine, begins the second half of the season. Jesus’ sermon or teaching directed at Nicodemus in John 3 is the second to last episode. At this pace, they could make 50 seasons of this show before they finally got to the end of the gospels, especially if each season is only eight episodes. And there’s a LOT of time spent of Nicodemus, Matthew and Peter’s wife. Not that those were bad arcs. The contrast of Nicodemus vs. Matthew was rather fascinating. It’s just that they could probably pick up the pace a bit in future seasons and I wouldn’t complain too much.

Speaking of future seasons, there’s another element here that’s both of positive and a bit of a hindrance. This movie has the visual and technical feel of a show that a lot of time and money was dumped into. I definitely appreciated that. But I also think that they could’ve pulled off the same or similar thing without spending so much money. I don’t know how much they put into season one, but they’ve spent the last year begging for funding for a second season. And it’s $10 million that they’re asking for. According to their app, they’re only $4 million in. And the first half of the first season showed up in April 2019. I’m not so sure a completely crowd-funded project is the best business strategy, especially if they want to do seven seasons. But they don’t really have a whole lot of options at the moment. I mean, their distributor just got ordered to fork over $62 million in between the debut of the first and second half of the initial season. So some rich Christian billionaire just needs to fork over $100 million to them so that it doesn’t take them 100 years to fund all seven seasons.