Onward Review

After a bit of a sequel run as of late, Pixar is back doing what they do best. Original animated films. Prior to “Onward,” four of the last five movies that Pixar released were sequels. In fact, this whole past decade was quite sequel heavy for Pixar, which is in stark contrast to what they did during the beginning of their tenure as an animation studio. Starting with “Toy Story” in 1995 and going to “UP” in 2009, they made nine original films and one sequel, that of “Toy Story 2” in 1999, which itself was initially envisioned by Disney as a direct-to-video sequel. But in the 2010s, Pixar made 11 movies and seven of them were either sequels or other franchise continuations (“Monsters University” was a prequel, which is why I make that distinction). When you look at this whole picture, generally speaking, Pixar does much better with their original films, at least in terms of quality. Outside the “Toy Story” franchise, their sequels just aren’t quite up to par in comparison, which is why I’m glad they’re starting the 2020s with two original films, “Onward” right now and “Soul” in June. Is this going to be the beginning of a trend for Pixar? I don’t know. Pixar has announced dates for their upcoming slate of films, but have yet to reveal what any of those projects are. I hope it is, though.

Normally when it comes to Pixar, awareness is super high and I don’t have to spend much effort convincing people to go see their movies. The discussion is more or less centered around us comparing notes as to what we all thought of it, since a large percentage of people have already ran out to theaters. However, box office results from this past weekend suggest a slightly different story. Without adjusting for inflation, “Onward” came in just below “The Good Dinosaur” in terms of opening weekends with $39.1 million, and only ahead of “Toy Story” in 1995, which opened to $29.1 million, and “A Bug’s Life” in 1998, which opened to $33.3 million. As you might guess, ticket prices were much lower back in the 90s, which means Pixar did indeed suffer their worst opening weekend in their studio’s history with “Onward” in terms of the number of tickets sold. There’s probably a wide range of reasons as to why this happened, all combining together to hurt “Onward,” but I honestly think the awareness of this movie just isn’t as high. Those who are aware of this movie’s existence also just might simply not be as interested as they usually are when it comes to Pixar movies, so I need to put a little more effort into getting you out to see this, so long as you aren’t quarantined.

When I first saw advertising for “Onward,” I immediately thought of Netflix’s 2017 film “Bright,” the movie where Will Smith starred as a police officer and his companion was an orc. Essentially that was a fantasy movie where the fantasy creatures had lost their magic powers or chose not to use them and began to live normal, human lives. The premise for “Onward” is very similar, albeit without the heavy-handed political themes or the bizarre nature of pretty much everything involved. It’s almost as if people at Pixar watched that movie and decided they could do something similar, but much better. The only thing that throws a wrench into that theory is the fact that this was announced at D23 in July 2017, five months before “Bright” came out. Writer and director Dan Scanlon claimed his inspiration for the film came from his own personal history of his father dying when him and his brother were younger. He wrote the story after hearing an audio clip from his father. That makes too much sense to be false, but I still like my theory because “Bright” and “Onward” are awfully similar. Like “Bright,” our world here is also full of fantasy creatures living normal lives like humans or animals. Although their reason for transitioning away from magic is that technology made more sense than magic.

That idea of technology overpowering magic is an interesting parallel to reality. One could argue that constant flow of technology via all of our electronics and devices has hurt creativity. If “Onward” helps inspire more adventure and creativity, I certainly think that’s a great thing for the younger generation. However, that specific setting is used more of a backdrop to the current adventure rather than being a main focus. The movie’s driving force is precisely what I alluded to earlier with director Dan Scanlon’s personal experience with his father and brother. “Onward” is primarily focused on the two brothers, voiced by Chris Pratt and Tom Holland. Holland’s character, Ian Lightfoot, has never met his father as his father died before shortly before Ian was born. Ian’s older brother Barley Lightfoot, voiced by Chris Pratt, does remember their father, but was really young when he died. On Ian’s 16th birthday, he is given his father’s magical staff as a present with a spell included that will bring their father back for 24 hours. However, they fail in their execution of the spell, only bringing their father’s legs back. This immediately sends the two brothers on an adventure as they try to figure out a way to complete the spell properly before the 24 hours run out.

The first thing that I want to say about this is that it’s a lot of fun. I’m not one who has ever played Dungeons and Dragons, but “Onward” very much has the structure of a Dungeons and Dragons style of adventure. The end credits of the movie is what specifically clued me in on this as it mentions that there are specific elements of this movie that were taken directly from early Dungeons and Dragons games. When I saw that in the credits, it immediately connected with me that the movie I just watched was essentially Pixar’s “Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie.” The two brothers are on a quest to find a stone that will help them complete the spell. And there’s a lot of obstacles along the way that they have to overcome. The older brother, Barley, is super nerdy about all of this with his cards and games that he insists are historically based. Barley is also super outgoing and carefree, so the idea of risk excites him rather than scaring him. Ian, on the other hand, is a lot quieter. He’s working on his self-confidence, but isn’t sure of a lot, yet he’s the one that the staff works with. He’s also unsure of his brother’s plan, but he decides to go along with it. This sort of chemistry with the brothers adds a significant dose drama and excitement that propels the movie forward.

To go along with this high-octane adventure that doesn’t slow down, giving this a fairly unique flavor for a Pixar film, this is also a movie that has 100 percent of the Pixar touch. Every time you go into a new Pixar film, a high dosage of emotion is pretty much the expectation. Rarely, if ever, do they make your cotton candy style of kids film with a fun adventure and no depth. They always try to pack a huge, emotional punch. If you don’t walk out of the theater on the verge of tears or being deeply affected in other ways, then Pixar essentially didn’t do their job. With “Onward,” the second you hear that this is a Pixar movie where the plot centers around the death of a father and two brothers trying to bring him back for 24 hours, you know exactly what this movie is going to try to do at some point and thus you brace for impact and try to be strong through it all. This is why, in my initial Facebook reaction last week, I turned the word Pixar into a verb. “Onward” is a movie that you know is going to Pixar you, or hit you with a strong dose of emotion. Even though I was braced for impact, it Pixared me anyways, leaving me an emotional wreck. The reason why it was so effective is that it Pixared me in a way that I wasn’t expecting to get Pixared.

I don’t want to get into a whole lot of details in regards to the specifics here. The obvious reason is that I don’t want to give out any spoilers or even hint at any so that the experience for you is ruined. But I also don’t want to dive into my personal reasons as to why this affected me so much because that might be a backdoor way to give spoilers. If I tell you my personal experiences, then you might be able to connect the dots as to what happened in this movie. But nevertheless, this movie hit really close to home for me, which means I might value it slightly higher that some people because of that. And that’s OK. Pixar is really good at getting personal with their audience, which means the movies of theirs that you like the most are most likely determined by your own personal experiences. That said, I have no idea exactly where this movie ranks for me when it comes to Pixar’s filmography. I need to sit down and figure that out. I will say that the more movies that Pixar releases, the harder it becomes to get my exact ranking nailed down because we’re at a point where it might be difficult for a new Pixar movie to even make my top 10 due to the consistent quality that they put out. At this point, my top five might be set in stone given how many near perfect films Pixar has released.

Despite where this movie may end up on my Pixar ranking, one thing is for sure. This didn’t deserve to have the label of Pixar’s least attended opening weekend. And I don’t think the panic in the United States of the coronavirus is strong enough at the moment to convince enough people to stay away from theaters this past weekend to give it that label. In terms of the worldwide gross, of course it makes sense for Asia and Europe to not show up in huge numbers, but in the United States I wouldn’t say as much. I honestly think that a large percentage of the reason why the numbers were so low is because either the awareness wasn’t super high or people saw the trailers and weren’t too terribly interested. In which case, I’m here to tell you that, at the very least, this movie is fun and exciting. There’s never a dull moment. If you’re a Pixar fan, which most of us should be, I’m confident in my claim that you will at least find this to be an enjoyable ride that’s well worth your time. I can’t guarantee that the movie will effect you in the same way it did me due to how personal it felt, but it might. If you’re not in the mood to go to a crowded venue, go on a weekday night or a matinee showing. Or wait a week or two. But go see this. I’m giving “Onward” a 9/10.

Movie Preview: March 2020

The second month of the year has come and gone and, without any sort of "Black Panther" around to light the box office on fire, it was again a normal February, which is historically one of the lowest grossing months of the year. "Sonic the Hedgehog" was the big story this time around as it broke out in a big way, making $123.4 million in the month of February, but that was pretty much it. In second place was "Birds of Prey" with just $77.7 million in February, a total that "Joker" flew past in just three days back in October. "The Invisible Man" ended the month on a good note, but it only had two days to work with when it came to February. Moving onto March, this is the month in recent years that has often signaled the beginning of an early summer. And while this month has the firepower to do so with several big titles, this might be a difficult month to predict. The coronavirus has rightfully dominated the news this year and has just recently began to spread in the United States. Because of this, crowded movie theaters might not be people's favorite place to be. Some studios might decide to postpone certain movies altogether, like was just the case with the latest Bond movie "No Time to Die." With all of that in mind, this is what the current schedule looks like.

March 6th - 8th-

Leading the charge in March will be Pixar with their 22nd animated feature in Onward. After releasing two straight sequels, and four sequels in their last five movies, “Onward” is the first of two original animated films that Pixar is releasing in 2020, with “Soul” currently scheduled for June. Whether or not this is the beginning of a trend for Pixar returning to making more original films is yet to be determined as Pixar has scheduled dates for their slate of films from 2021 to 2023, but hasn’t given any information as to what they are. “Onward” is a movie that takes a page from Netflix’s 2017 film “Bright” as it is a movie full of fantasy characters who now live like normal human beings or animals without magical powers. However, two brothers whose father has passed away find a magical staff and have the opportunity to live with their father for one more day, but the staff only brings back his legs, sending them on a magical adventure. In terms of the box office, Pixar has been on a roll with their recent sequels, three of which have opened above $100 million, but their original films open more down to Earth. Even so, anything less than $50 million for “Onward” would actually be considered a disappointment for Pixar standards, even when it does come to their original films.

Continuing on that financial side of things real quick for “Onward” before moving onto our other film of the week. We’ll find out here really soon exactly what “Onward” is going to do, but the last two Pixar films that were released were 2017’s “Coco” and 2015’s “The Good Dinosaur.” Neither would make the perfect apples-to-apples comparison due to their release on a Wednesday during the week of Thanksgiving, but “Coco” had a three-day opening of $50.8 million and a five-day opening of $72.9 million. “The Good Dinosaur,” Pixar’s lowest-grossing film, had a three-day opening of $39.2 million and a five-day opening of $55.6 million. In 2015, “Inside Out” opened to a massive $90.4 million while “Brave” in 2012 surprised a bit with $66.3 million, both of those opening on a regular three-day weekend. Taking a quick look at one Pixar sequel in 2017’s “Cars 3,” which was another film that opened on the lower end of the Pixar spectrum, that one even landed a $53.7 million opening. The tracking for “Onward” isn’t necessarily through the roof and the reaction is a bit lukewarm, but it does have strong enough reviews at an 87 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. That combined with the Pixar brand should, in theory, help it get high enough to at least hit par for the course.

After that slight deep dive into “Onward,” the other movie on the wide release schedule is The Way Back, which is not to be confused with 2013 film “The Way, Way Back.” Only one “way” here. This movie is a sports drama, perhaps leaning a bit more on the drama side of things, starring Ben Affleck and directed by Gavin O’Connor, who previously directed movies like “Miracle,” “Warrior” and “The Accountant.” So O’Connor is familiar with this specific genre and has a good resume there of quality films. Even though “The Accountant” has nothing to do with sports, that re-teams him with star Ben Affleck. In “The Way Back,” Affleck plays a former basketball player who turned down a scholarship to Kansas and is now struggling with alcoholism that is ruining his life. However, his high school alma matter offers him a job to coach their basketball team, which in turn gives him an opportunity to turn his life around. The movie is currently tracking to open in the $6-10 million range, which feels about right. In 2011, O’Connor’s “Warrior” opened to $5.2, while 2016’s “Eddie the Eagle” opened to around $6 million. On the higher end of the spectrum, a pair of Disney sports movies, “McFarland, USA” and “Million Dollar Arm,” opened to $11 million and $10.5 million respectively.

March 13th - 15th-

Barring a colossal failure on the side of Pixar or a huge surprise with one of these new films this weekend, "Onward" will claim a second week on top of the charts. But there's going to be four new wide releases this week all fighting for a spot somewhere in the top five and early indications seem to favor the Christian film I Still Believe. This movie comes from the exact same team as "I Can Only Imagine," who are looking to catch lightning in a bottle twice after "I Can Only Imagine" ended up earning $83.4 million domestically, which is one of the highest totals for a Christian film. The thing here is that Bart Millard and his band MercyMe are a bit more widely known than Jeremy Camp, the subject of "I Still Believe." Nevertheless, with Easter coming on April 12 and no other Christian film in the way, this is poised quite well for Christian audiences as it tells the story behind Jeremy Camp and how his first wife Melissa was diagnosed with cancer shortly before they married, which led him to write the song "I Still Believe." Christian films can be hard to predict at the box office and while "I Still Believe" probably won't hit as high as the $17.1 million opening of "I Can Only Imagine," a large sample of other Christian films suggest that $10-15 million is in play.

On a wildly different note, we swing from the uplifting Christian film to the movie that might be the most controversial film to be released as of late. That movie is The Hunt. Loosely based on a 1924 short story titled "The Most Dangerous Thing," this is a Hunger Games style of movie where a bunch of strangers wake up in a clearing only to learn that they are being hunted by a group of elites. The movie obviously does not shy way from the extreme politics of it all with the hunted representing the conservatives with the elite that are doing the hunting are representing the liberals. All of this being done in a very violent and comedic, tongue-in-cheek sort of way. Back in August, President Trump actually tweeted about the movie, accusing it of made solely to inflame and cause chaos, which might not necessarily be wrong. Although Mr. President may have not realized that the conservatives are actually the heroes of the movie while the liberals are the villains. Either way, the movie was pulled back in August following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, but Universal decided to eventually throw it back on the schedule while implementing a very self-aware advertising campaign that highlights the controversy and invites the moviegoer to come and decide for themselves.

The third movie of the weekend is the year's next superhero movie, Bloodshot. Although this is one of those superhero movies that many people may not realize exists or even realize is a superhero movie. And the unfortunate reality is that this is the case because "Bloodshot" is not Marvel or DC. It comes from Valiant Comics. Haven't heard of them? Well, they were founded in 1989. Sold in 1994 to Acclaim Entertainment, which went bankrupt in 2004. The company was restarted in 2005 by a pair of entrepreneurs in 2005. So yeah, it hasn't been all rainbows and butterflies for Valiant. Bloodshot is a character who got assassinated along with his wife and brought back by a team of scientists who use nanotechnology to turn him into a superhuman, biotech killing machine. When he slowly gets his memories back, he escapes and goes on a revenge mission to kill the man who killed his wife. Bloodshot is played by Vin Diesel, which is the biggest thing that this movie has going for it. Although as popular as Diesel is, he's not been known to carry a new franchise on his back based on his name alone. Because of that, one of his solo outings, that of "The Last Witch Hunter," might be a good comparison. That movie opened to $10.8 million back in 2015.

While it's true that comedies have a tendency to randomly break out and thus become a bit unpredictable, it nevertheless seems that My Spy is destined to come in last place out of the new wide releases this weekend. Although it's certainly not without its own bit of star-power as it's led by Vin Diesel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-star Dave Bautista, who is trying his hardest make a name for himself outside his beloved Drax role, but that hasn't exactly worked out lately, with the most recent failure being last year's "Stuber," which could only muster $8 million in its opening weekend, despite seeing Bautista team up with Kumail Nanjiani. "My Spy" has Bautista teaming up with 11-year-old Chloe Coleman, playing a 9-year-old girl in this movie, as he plays a CIA agent who is getting one last shot to prove his worth and thus becomes at the mercy of said 9-year-old girl who figures him out after he gets assigned to surveil her family. The movie seems like it's directed at a family audience, but went with the PG-13 rating, meaning it might awkwardly fall in the range of not pleasing families nor adults. The movie is directed by Peter Segal, whose last two movies, "Second Act" (2018) and "Grudge Match" (2013) opened to $6.5 million and $7 million respectively.

March 20th - 22nd-

After a weekend that had four new wide releases, the final two weekends in March both only have one movie each. This third weekend belongs solely to the release of A Quiet Place Part II. As I've mentioned a couple times this year when doing monthly previews and reviewing "The Invisible Man," 2020 has been a year where a whole bunch of horror movies have been dumped. But if "The Invisible Man" was the first major horror release, "A Quiet Place Part II" is the second one. And this could very well be the biggest three-day opening of the year so far, which currently belongs to "Bad Boys for Life" at $62.5 million. In 2018, "A Quiet Place" became quite the phenomenon as it opened to $50.2 million, which is practically unheard of for an original horror film based on no previous material. In fact, under those qualifications, it could be argued that "A Quiet Place" set that record, depending, of course, on what you qualify as a horror film. Said record was taken away by last year's "Us," which opened to $71.1 million. Given how popular "A Quiet Place" was, how recent it was released, and how it demands to be seen with a large crowd in a theater, "A Quiet Place Part II" is positioned to soar at the box office, potentially matching the range of "Us" or 2018's "Halloween," which opened to $76.2 million. The all-time horror record is "IT" in 2017 with $123.4 million.

March 27th - 29th-

The final wide release of the month is the movie in the most awkward position at the moment and that is Disney's Mulan. While Disney has been somewhat hit and miss with their live action remakes in terms of the box office success, the three times that they have dove into their classic 90s renaissance films has delivered massive results, with "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" all delivering $1 billion worldwide. So naturally it makes sense financially to explore other 90s remakes, which is why we have "Mulan." However, Disney has decided to go down a slightly different route with this one, which has produced mixed results in terms of fan reaction to the trailers. Instead doing a direct remake of the 1998 animated film, Disney is ditching the musical element of this, as well as some beloved characters, like Eddie Murphy's Mushu. Why? Well, Disney has decided to be more true to the original Chinese lore here. Even though "Mulan" is arguably one of the more beloved Disney animated films, it was a situation where Disney took a Chinese story and "Disneyfied" it by completely changing everything and making it their own thing. While the Americans liked the results, the Chinese people arguably hated "Mulan," which leads us to the unfortunate elephant in the room.

Disney's goal with this "Mulan" remake was to first and foremost please the Chinese market by creating a "Mulan" movie that honored their culture and traditions. If they had to piss off a few bitter Americans in the process, that seemed worth it financially given how big the Chinese movie market is. But yeah, in case you've been living under a rock the last few months, the whole country of China right now is essentially quarantined due to the coronavirus. There is no Chinese movie market at the moment. And while some movies might be able to survive momentarily without China, "Mulan" is not one of them. The movie has a reported production budget of at least $200 million and an American fan base that is not too happy. Also, said fan base is realistically just not as big as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" in the frist place. Some circles are predicting "Mulan" to open in the $40-60 million range and finish with a domestic total of $120-150 million. That just won't cut it. Without China, Disney is heading straight for disaster at the moment. Disney is claiming that they are moving forward, but honestly they might be better off by pulling a James Bond and putting "Mulan" on the shelf for now until the coronavirus pandemic dies down.

The Invisible Man Review

We’re just beginning the third month of the year and there have already been… wait for it… eight horror movies released in theaters. And of the eight, “The Invisible Man” is the first one I have saw. Of the other seven, we’ve had “The Grudge,” “Underwater,” “The Turning,” “Gretel & Hansel,” “Fantasy Island,” “The Lodge” and “Brahms: The Boy II.” I saw “The Lodge” a day after seeing “The Invisible Man” and that review is coming soon. It was a Sundance horror film from 2019 that had been waiting over a year for and was finally released. I enjoyed “The Boy,” so I am curious about what the heck they’re doing with “The Boy II.” And “Underwater” I hear was fairly decent, so I might check that one out eventually when it hits streaming. The other four I have little interest in. But “The Invisible Man” is the first major horror film that made a significant impact at the box office last weekend. It’s also based on source material that is well over 100 years old as H.G. Wells’ original novel was published in 1897. The title character was then brought in as one of Universal’s classic monsters in 1933 and has been a staple in monster lore and cinema ever since, right alongside the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein. The number of movies he’s appeared in is quite the long list.

This current adaptation of “The Invisible Man” has been in production as early as 2007. Production kicked into gear in the mid 2010s when Universal had the idea to reboot their classic monsters in a shared universe they called the Dark Universe. Said Dark Universe lasted approximately one movie following the financial and critical disaster that was the 2017 Tom Cruise remake of “The Mummy,” which is a movie that I personally didn’t hate. There were some interesting pieces in place and I liked Sofia Boutella’s Mummy portrayal. The problem is that the movie spent so much time setting of the Dark Universe that they forgot to stop and make a good individual movie. Every studio is trying so hard to copy “The Avengers” that they forget that Marvel began by simply making “Iron Man,” “Thor” and “Captain America” as individual movies before later bringing them together in 2012. The process shouldn’t be rushed. In order to make people care about a cinematic universe, people first need to be emotionally invested in the individual players. Hence is why the Dark Universe crashed and burned. However, during this aftermath, Jasom Blum decided he wanted to still make “The Invisible Man” as an individual movie not connected to any sort of cinematic universe.

And thus we have this current Leigh Whannell directed remake of the popular story, produced by Blumhouse and distributed by Universal, with a production budget of just $7 million, which is why its $28 million opening was a huge success. Compare that to 2017’s “The Mummy,” which opened a tad bit higher at $31 million, yet was a disaster because it had a production budget in the range of $125-195 million. It did make up ground overseas with a worldwide total of $410 million, but the $80.2 million domestic total was just not enough for Universal to move forward with the Dark Universe. Quite frankly, if Universal wanted to create a new cinematic monsterverse, focusing first on individual movies that don’t have gigantic budgets is exactly how they should’ve gone. Because I like the idea of doing modern takes on old monster movies. The execution just needs to be there, which is why I really enjoyed this remake of “The Invisible Man.” Leigh Whannell was definitely the right man for the job. Not only did he have plenty of experience with the horror genre as he helped write movies like “Saw” and “Insidious,” but he also showed off his directing prowess with the 2018 film “Upgrade,” a movie that I never reviewed on this blog, but one that I really enjoyed.

What makes "The Invisible Man" so effective is that it manages to get under your skin and becomes quite unsettling in a very unique way. The movie follows a girl with a psychotic and abusive boyfriend who does not take kindly to her finally running away. He tries to chase her down, but she just barely escapes his grasp and hides with a friend of her's. She becomes paranoid and basically lives like a hermit for an extended period of time, only to finally start gaining peace and comfort when news comes out that he has committed suicide. But given that everyone should've seen the title of the movie when they walked into the theaters, and most likely also watched trailers, we all know that he didn't actually commit suicide. He simply faked his death and found a way to become invisible. Not via a failed science experiment, but some sort of optic technology that he was working on. And because the world thinks he committed suicide, he becomes invisible both literally and in terms of his status in the world. And now when he finds his former girlfriend and starts slowly ruining her life, she's the one who everyone thinks is going crazy. And it's actually pretty tragic because the second she starts to get better is when he shows up and ruins everything.

In terms of the horror elements, this movie is quite genius. It doesn't rely on jump scares and loud noises to try to scare people. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This movie is slow and quiet, but it's those quiet moments that become extremely uncomfortable because the guy shows himself fairly early, then disappears. Thus we as an audience know something is up even before the girl does. Because of that, we spend every scene trying to figure out where exactly he's standing and when he's going to strike. Or is he going to awkwardly watch her sleep or disturbingly watch her take a shower? Thus very normal scenes that would otherwise be quite boring become super intense as the audience is dying in anticipation of something terrible on the horizon. It's also quite genius in terms of the budget. They didn't have to spend anything on fancy visual effects, scary monsters, or elaborate makeup work. The monster literally doesn't exist. Most of the craft involves fancy camerawork as the camera pans around or focuses in on a certain spot, thus cluing in the audience that he is probably standing right there. Then the camera plays mind tricks on the audience as it zooms out, making the audience guess where he is. We often don't know if she's about to get attacked.

Not only is this extremely intense and wildly entertaining if you are a horror fan, but as I eluded to before, this movie has a surprising amount of emotion. Despite this girl going through a horribly traumatic experience with an abusive relationship, she has a good support group and several great relationships. The acting across the board with the movie's visible characters is excellent and you're rooting for this girl to succeed. But then the invisible man shows up. We see him. She sees him. But no one else does. Thus when she tries to go to her friends and explain what's going on, they all think she is crazy because this is not some sort of fantasy world. It's a modern, realistic portrayal of a guy who created the technology to become invisible without anyone knowing. Because of this, these solid relationships start to slowly deteriorate due to what's going on. Things that the guy is actually doing get blamed on the girl because that's the only logical explanation. The domino effect here becomes the most damaging to the girl, who is slowly starting to lose her grasp of her mental state and spiral psychologically out of control. You can tell based on the chain of events happening that she is about to completely break down.

As I referred to in the opening of this review, there is a large amount of horror films thrown our way, mostly because they are so cheap to make and easy for studios to make a quick buck. Because of that, a large majority of them are lazily put together, generic pieces of trash. I know I haven't seen a whole lot of the ones that have already come out this year, but based on reviews from critics and audiences alike, the majority of them are horror films that fall into these lazy tropes, which makes it refreshing when a horror movie comes around in "The Invisible Man" that, not only is out to do something unique and different, but a lot of care is put into the craft to truly make it something that stands out. In many ways this reminds me of "A Quiet Place" from the other year in that both movies are unique horror experiences (yes, I consider both as horror films, not thrillers) that use a lot of technical craft to present the movie's scares while also making sure to have a solid foundation of solid acting, character progression, and human emotion rather than relying on cheap scares and gory images. This is also a great example of a remake that justifies it's existence as something unique and different than it's predecessor. Instead of retreading old ground, they made something new.

If you're a horror fan and you're looking for something good to satisfy your needs, "The Invisible Man" is definitely a movie that you need to see. But also, if you are one that claims you hate horror, this is the type of horror film that you actually might enjoy as I believe this will be a movie that will do a good job of expanding beyond the typical horror crowd. I can see a lot of people that will claim that this is a thriller, not a horror, and say they enjoyed it because of that despite them usually not liking horror. That's a comment that usually bugs me because there's a lot of people out there, in my opinion, who probably like the horror genre a lot more than they will allow themselves to internally accept. But it's whatever. Regardless of what you decide to call it, if you like horror and/or thriller, this is a must see. No, it's not on the same level of some of the independent horror films that I love, but it didn't need to be. Again, like "A Quiet Place," this is an excellent horror film made for mainstream audiences. It didn't need to be super deep and thought-provoking. It's just an excellently done, well-crafted, mainstream horror film. If Universal or Blumhouse decide to do more classic monster films this way, I'm 100 percent on board. MY grade for "The Invisible Man" is a 9/10.

The Call of the Wild Review

From 20th Century Studios… not 20th Century Fox… comes another confusing production with “The Call of the Wild” that Disney inherited when they purchased Fox. We’ll get to all of the confusing production stuff here in a bit, but the first thing that caught my eye was that name 20th Century Studios. I was hearing buzz that Disney was rebranding Fox, but to see that new logo caught me off guard. If I’m not mistaken, “The Call of the Wild” is the first movie to officially display the new name and logo. Disney has also switched Fox Searchlight to Searchlight Pictures, so I guess the idea is to phase out the Fox name since the two studios are no longer affiliated with the current Fox Corporation that’s not owned by Disney. So I guess that makes sense, but my brain is going to have a hard time getting used to that. I never used the full name of 20th Century Fox. It was just Fox. But now that Disney is phasing out the Fox name, am I supposed to use 20th Century as the short name? Or simply use the full name of 20th Century Studios? Neither of those are connecting in my brain at the moment, so I will apologize to Disney for being rebellious and still call this Fox. Sue me. But whatever name you want to call this studio now, they have a movie out and it’s time for us to discuss it.

“The Call of the Wild” started off as a novel by Jack London, published in 1903. The novel takes place in the late 1800s, during the gold rush. The central character is a dog named Buck that is a St. Bernard-Scotch Collie mix. At the start of the story, he is a happy dog living with an owner in California, but after a series of events, he gets stolen and sold as a sled dog in Alaska. It’s one of those stories where the dog passes hands through several different owners as he slowly becomes adjusted to living solely in the wild rather than in a domestic situation with an owner. But that’s the book. For me personally, I wasn’t 100 percent sure what this specific adaptation was doing based on all of the trailers because the marketing focused heavily on his time with Harrison Ford and I wasn’t even able to determine what the time period of this was. So I’m not sure what Disney was really thinking with this marketing or if they really cared much for this adaptation. “The Call of the Wild” is a book that I have read. I don’t know when. My guess is that I read it during grade school at some point, possibly for school. The details are vague in my mind. I just know that when I saw it on the schedule about a year ago, it piqued my interested because it sounded like something that I was familiar with.

 The pleasant surprise for me when I actually dove into the movie was that they actually did follow the novel fairly closely. Yes, my specific experience with the novel is a bit vague, but thanks to the fact that the internet exists, I familiarized myself with the story, thus reminding myself why this actually is considered a classic novel. So the fact that this is a movie that follows the source material is a positive thing. It’s not just a random thing with Harrison Ford hanging out with a dog in the wilderness. The movie is about this dog named Buck and his experiences being taken from his home and learning to adapt to his circumstances. Harrison Ford shows up briefly in the first half of the movie, but isn’t really part of the story until the second half of the movie. Now in compared to the novel, this is a more condensed version of the story. In the novel, Buck goes through several different hands before being united with John Thornton, who is played by Harrison Ford in the movie. But in this movie version, there’s a few different characters that are combined into one and thus there’s less owners that Buck has throughout the movie. And I thought that worked just fine. The writers here did a great job of cutting out what they needed in order to write a story that flowed well.

A perfect adaptation of the novel, in terms of including everything, would be something that would either be really long or would be one of these 8-10 episode Netflix miniseries. And that could be fun if the execution was done well, but I think this was a solid adaptation from book to screenplay. There was just enough stops along the way for the journey to mean something and for there to be progression for Buck, but at the same time it was concise enough to flow well as a solid movie. I also think that each point along the way came with great acting that really sold the drama and emotion here. And I’m not just talking about Harrison Ford, who was fantastic in this movie, but Buck’s other owners were also really well acted. I especially liked his sled dog team owners, Perrault and François, played by Omar Sy and Cara Gee. In fact, as great as Harrison Ford was, I personally enjoyed this first half of the movie a bit more. Omar Sy as Perrault was such a loving and caring owner. With Buck being in such a rough transition period in terms of just being taken from his home, Perrault did a fantastic job of helping him reach his potential and that’s the point of the movie where there was the most character development.

There was also some interesting drama among the team of dogs at this point. The lead sled dog was a Husky named Spitz, who was mean and aggressive. Once Buck got settled in as a member of the team, he slowly gained more respect among the other dogs, which caused Spitz to get jealous that Buck was starting taking over as the leader of the dogs. Eventually it builds up to a confrontation between Spitz and Buck which was fairly intense. However, there is a giant elephant in the room here that I’ve dodged because I’m not really that interested in writing up the same exact review as everyone else on the internet. But the drama between the dogs isn’t as intense as it could be because all the dogs are CGI and the CGI is quite bad. This has been a popular point of conversation surrounding this movie and I’m personally a bit conflicted. I think this is something that adults and critics will be bothered by, but in terms of this being a movie directed at family audiences, I honestly don’t think family audiences, especially younger kids, will care at all. Younger kids might have more of a problem with the movie keeping their attention as this is not necessarily a movie directed at kids specifically, but if they enjoyed all of the other recent dog movies, then they’ll probably love this one.

Me personally, I was more distracted with the fact that Buck had a lot more human qualities than he should’ve. If the filmmakers are going to decide to use CGI dogs, they should make them all act like dogs. Buck’s facial expressions, many of his reactions and a lot of his actions were very human. The biggest example of this came in the second half of the movie when Buck seemed to be super concerned about Harrison Ford’s drinking problem. And he took his bottle of alcohol away from him towards the beginning of their partnership, which made no sense. A normal dog wouldn’t have any knowledge about what that drink was or why it was bad for a human to drink it. Little things like this happened the entire movie. Thus Buck reminded me a lot of Scooby-Doo in the way he acted. Granted, Scooby-Doo’s humanlike characteristics work because it’s a comedic take of a dog that is not going for realism. So it works. Everyone loves Scooby-Doo. But “The Call of the Wild” is trying to be a serious drama about a dog going through a lot of hard experiences, so it becomes tonally conflicting when you have a cartoonish, humanlike dog in a movie that’s otherwise trying to be super realistic. And if they hadn’t relied so heavily on CGI, they wouldn't have had that problem.

The other thing that makes this super confusing is that the decision to have such a CGI-heavy production rose the price tag on their movie significantly. The reported production budget is $125-150 million, which is insane because this movie was never going to come close to that. In looking at our recent four dog movies, “A Dog’s Purpose” was the biggest earner with $64.5 million domestically and $205 million worldwide. The other three, “A Dog’s Journey,” “A Dog’s Way Home” and “The Art of Racing in the Rain,” averaged $30.3 million domestically and $62.1 million worldwide. “The Call of the Wild” is off to a great start compared to all four as it opened to a surprising $24.8 million when it was expected to open to $10-15 million, but still. The general rule of thum is that a movie needs to at least double or triple its production budget given that said budget doesn’t include marketing costs and the studio doesn’t get back 100 percent of the box office earnings, especially not internationally. So “The Call of the Wild” might need to make at least $200-300 million worldwide to be a success after their choice of using CGI. The other four movies used real dogs and their production budgets averaged out to be $18.5 million.

Yes, I realize that this movie has a higher percentage of dangerous scenes included in it, so I feel like the filmmakers decided that they weren’t going to even attempt to put their trained dogs in any sort of peril in order to avoid any sort of controversy. And when you have dogs leading sleds, dogs fighting other dogs, and dogs going up against bears and wolves, that all makes sense. But I feel like there are filmmaking tricks with these animal movies that allow them to pull off scenes that appear to be really dangerous, yet the animals were never in any sort of harm. I don’t know what these tricks are, but I do know that animal movies have been made for a long time. Heck, this exact book has been adapted several times throughout history, beginning as early as the silent film era in the 1920s, and all of those adaptations didn't have the technology available to CGI all of the dogs and they made out just fine. Rather, my conclusion is that they felt a bit lazy and didn't want to put in the effort of training dogs doing the necessary filmmaking tricks to pull this off, so they just CGI-ed everything, which was an expensive lazy decision. I think they saw movies like "The Jungle Book" and decided to follow suit. And that's an unfortunate decision that compromised the quality of this film.

Did all of the CGI dog stuff ruin this film for me? No, it didn't. As I said, this is a well-written, well-adapted movie with some great sequences, great acting and great character arcs. I think it captures the spirit of the novel in an appropriate way that makes for an enjoyable experience. And all that makes this a bit frustrating because this could've been a great movie that lived up to the legacy of a lot of the excellent animal-led movies that have graced the screen over the decades. But that lazy decision to CGI all of the animals holds back this movie's potential and also cost them big time in terms of profitability at the box office. And I think it's funny that they decided to play it safe and not figure out ways to film certain sequences with real animals, because they also played it safe in terms of the danger in the movie. The original novel is a lot more intense and honest with what happens to certain dogs in the story. The movie could've portrayed that brutality since all the dogs were CGI, but they decided not to. They also changed the novel's villains in the final act from Native Americans to a mustache-twirling white dude who had significantly more depth and character progression in the original novel. So there's plenty of kinks in this movie's armor, but I'm still giving it a 7/10.

Sonic the Hedgehog Review

Here's a movie that's been through quite the adventure over the course of the last year. Despite video game movies rarely working out, someone at Paramount thought it would be a good idea to make a "Sonic the Hedgehog" movie. Or, better yet, someone in the world came up with the idea, pitched it to Paramount, and Paramount signed off on the project. That alone can be seen as a bit of a strange turn of events, but whatever. "Detective Pikachu" worked out rather well, so I suppose Sonic could, too, right? Haha, yeah... but not with that initial plan. This movie was supposed to come out this past November and when they decided to start advertising it, the most horrific sight you'll ever see graced the internet and no one was happy about it. This Sonic movie was about to become the laughing stock of this generation. A movie to be made fun of for the rest of time. Until the unprecedented happened. Director Jeff Fowler took to Twitter shortly after the trailer dropped, told us all he's heard our complaints, and that they're going to fix it. Say what? I was rather shocked. Filmmakers who actually listen to the fan response, pause production on their film, and set out to do what the fans want? Color me impressed. Regardless of the quality of the movie, that act just earned them my $10.

As it turned out, the revamped Sonic looked rather impressive. Part of me wonders if this was all part of some strange master plan by Paramount where they purposely designed enough of a bad-looking Sonic to create a fake trailer, but had the real version ready to go in their back pocket when they got the horrible reaction that they were going for. So they "paused production" in order to "fix" Sonic, sat back and relaxed for a few months, then kicked things into gear. OK, that probably wasn't what happened. But if it did, it would've been rather genius. Because that bad Sonic certainly got everyone's attention, as did the announcement of them stopping production to redesign Sonic. Finally, when the actual trailers started to show up, the audience reaction was at a complete 180 degree turn from what it was before. And as the frosting on top of the cake, February turned out to be a much better release date for the movie. Instead of having to deal with the likes of "Frozen 2," "Jumanji" and "Star Wars" over the holidays following a November release, Sonic has the family audience in February all to itself. Lucky for them, "Dolittle" was a massive disappointment in January and "Onward" is a whole month away in March. All the stars seem to have aligned for a breakout hit.

Despite all of this commotion, this didn't necessarily satisfy all of my personal concerns about this movie. Yes, the initial design of Sonic was atrocious. And yes, I'm glad that they fixed it. But I think there was a deeper, root issue that stemmed from the fact that I don't know if a live action Sonic film really was a good idea. Why does everything have to be live action these days? And it what world does it make the most sense to bring Sonic into the human world? I think that if we HAD to do a Sonic film, it should be an animated Sonic movie from someone like Illumination or DreamWorks, or Sega joining the animation game with their own new animation film studio. That would seem like the best option. But even then, I'm not sure of the narrative in the games is strong enough to warrant a film adaptation. As a child of the 90s, I liked the Sonic games just as much as the next person. I was much more of a Super Nintendo kid than a Sega Genesis kid, but whenever I got my hands on a Sonic game, I enjoyed it. But the fun of the games was running fast through the hoops, collecting coins and stopping villains. It's like Mario or Donkey Kong. A narrative exists. But that's not what makes the game fun. So how is this all going to translate?

The answer to this is, if I'm being bluntly honest, is that this doesn't translate super well. And I don't know if I really get this fascination of bringing Sonic into the human world. Since I mentioned "Detective Pikachu" at the beginning of this review, perhaps I should say that a Pokemon film makes a lot more sense as a live action production in the human world because the premise of Pokemon is already set in a human world and the specific "Detective Pikachu" game is a lot more centered around a narrative rather than just wandering around, catching Pokemon and defeated gyms. Bringing Sonic into the human world and making him live action feels a lot more like a Smurfs treatment. They didn't need to be live action and they didn't need to be in our world, but the filmmakers decided to anyways and thus they found that there wasn't quite as much to do with it. Now before I get too far down the negative rabbit hole here, I will say that even though the premise doesn't necessarily set this up for the highest level of success, everyone involved in this project does their absolute best to make this work anyways. And for that I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised at the final results here. This could've been a whole lot worse, but instead it ends up being satisfactory.

The actual premise of the movie involves Sonic transporting to Earth at a rather young age, then spending most of his life staying hidden on Earth in a little Montana town called Green Hills. There's a family he gravitates towards, but instead of formally introducing himself, he hides in the shadows and stalks them. However, one night many years in the future after Sonic initially arrived, he gets super lonely and in a bit of a rage, he runs super ultra fast and causes a power outage across the town. This causes the government to deploy the crazy Doctor Robotnik to investigate what is happening. Robotnik discovers Sonic. Sonic reveals himself to his secret family he's been stalking. James Marsden's character named Tom agrees to help Sonic out and the two of them go on a wild adventure trying to run away from Robotnik, with Sonic's eventual endgame being to use his gold rings to transport himself into a different world so that he can go back into hiding. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the movie. It's a very simple premise because there's not a whole lot you can do with a Sonic movie. And most of it is this buddy comedy with James Marsden and Sonic trying to escape from Robotnik, with plenty of gags, jokes, and action sequences along the way.

Even though it seems unnecessary to throw Sonic into a human world, the human actors all do a great job. James Marsden, Jim Carrey and Tika Sumpter could've taken this as a simple paycheck film, but they all take their roles super seriously. And by that I mean they put their heart and souls into this project in order to make it something that others will actually enjoy watching. Because Jim Carrey is anything but serious in this movie. And that's what makes his character of Doctor Robotnik rather fun.This is Jim Carrey once again embracing his old, wacky 90s self and there's a good enough makeup and hairstyling team to go along with him to make it look like he's not a 57-year-old Jim Carrey, but rather a Jim Carrey who is back in his prime. This is classic Jim Carrey and he's absolutely bonkers in this role, which is exactly what I want from a Jim Carrey performance. But it's not just him. James Marsden is also someone who found the fountain of youth because he looks like he's in his 20s in this movie rather than looking 46. Him and Tika Sumpter as husband and wife make a great young couple even though neither are too terribly young in real life. Better yet, James Marsden has great chemistry with Sonic, which was vital to make this work.

So yeah, there's not much of a plot here and maybe the idea behind this wasn't great, but I found myself really enjoying these adventures of James Marsden and Sonic. Sonic himself is voiced by Ben Schwartz. After looking up Ben Schwartz's IMDb page, I learned that he's done a lot of different voice work, which made him a great choice for Sonic. He does a great job of bringing Sonic to life. As he should be, Sonic is full of energy, making all of his scenes really entertaining. They even take a page from X-Men's Quicksilver in throwing together some super slow motion stuff just for the heck of it and it's rather amusing. I think what impressed me the most is that there's a fair bit of emotion sprinkled in. I didn't think I would care at all for how lonely Sonic was, but there were several scenes where that really showed up, both in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. That got to me. It made me care about Sonic and it made me want him to find true love and friendship. And when that happens with his team-up with James Marsden, there's some solid resolution that makes for a satisfying character arc. All of this I think will be extremely effective when it comes to families and young kids. Even if the kids don't have a pre-established attachment to Sonic, I think they'll fall in love with him.

In wrapping this all up, this is much better than it had any right to be. I think we were all ready to kick this into the dirt as a failed project that should've never come into existence, but instead it really feels like director Jeff Fowler really wanted to make this work as a fun family film that was also nostalgic enough for us adults who grew up with Sonic in the 90s. It's also possible that he had no other choice if he wanted his career to take off. If this was any other experienced director, maybe there wouldn't have been as high of a level of care because one bump in the road wouldn't be the end of the world. But all Jeff Fowler has done in terms of directing is a 2004 short film called "Gopher Broke." If his feature-length directorial debut was a wretchedly awful Sonic film, he can kiss his directing career goodbye. But now I think he's proved himself to be a competent director that deserves to be given additional opportunities following this film. Given that there's a significant tease in the end credits of this film that we all could've seen coming miles away, if Sonic becomes a huge financial success, I would love to see him take on the sequel that the movie definitely wants to do. Sure, this is far from perfect, but as a competently done Sonic film, I'll award "Sonic the Hedgehog" a 7/10.

Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn Review

How's that for a movie title? "Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn" is quite the fun title for a movie, in my opinion. Although if I type it too many times in this review, it'll take up half the review. So I'll just simply call it "Birds of Prey," even though that's not the most accurate title for this movie, but we'll get to that here in a bit. "Birds of Prey" is actually the first new 2020 release that I am reviewing, which is a bit crazy considering we're nearly halfway through the second month of the year. But, well, I've been busy with other stuff. Sundance took over my January movie viewing and I have no regrets there. Out of all the new January releases (not counting "Just Mercy" or "1917," which were 2019 releases that expanded in January -- both of which I did review), I'm curious about "The Gentlemen." I'll probably catch that eventually. None of the rest looked particularly interesting. And I know "Bad Boys for Life" exploded like crazy, but I've not seen any of those movies, so I don't know if I really have much say in that argument. So essentially I'm choosing to start of my 2020 movie experience with the latest in the ever so confusing DC timeline. But hey, screw the timeline. DC has. And that's the best decision that they've made as a company.

Because, yeah, "Birds of Prey" is all about Harley Quinn. The whole "Birds of Prey" thing is a bit of an afterthought that happens at the end of the movie. And speaking of timeline, since we can't make a Harley Quinn movie without at least mentioning the Joker, it might be a bit confusing for the casual moviegoer as to why we now have two Jokers in this DC world. No, Jared Leto's Joker from "Suicide Squad" doesn't actually show up in this movie, but he gets referenced by Harley Quinn in just about every scene in this movie. This happening four months after Todd Phillips' "Joker" was released in theaters and on the same exact weekend that Joaquin Phoenix won an Oscar for his portrayal of the title character in that movie. But no, Joaquin Phoenix's Joker was just a random side thing. That is until DC tries to convince Todd and Joaquin to do another one given that the movie made over $1 billion worldwide and got nominated for 11 Oscars, the most ever for a comic book film, ahead of both "Black Panther" and "The Dark Knight." But no, that's not the Joker that we're talking about. We're talking about the Joker from "Suicide Squad" that everyone hated. Because it's his Harley Quinn from said movie that this new movie is all about. That all make sense?

If you're still confused, just take a page from "The Flash" and imagine this as an alternate timeline. It's kind of a DC thing to do. And as I said, ignoring the confusing timeline is the best thing DC has done. After "The Avengers" completely caught fire and changed the movie industry forever, Warner Bros. was among the first of many to try to figure out how to replicate that, since it was them that owns DC. So instead of sticking to DC's roots as brand, they tried to copy Marvel by turning "Justice League" into the next "Avengers." But they didn't have the patience spend five movies building up to it, so after making the complete abomination that was "Man of Steel," they crammed five movies into one, called it "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice," then immediately jumped straight to "Justice League." And they wonder why "Justice League" ended up being a thing that kinda just came and went, rather than being the huge event film that it deserved to be. So then they had to pause and figure things out. Lucky for them, "Wonder Woman" was also a thing that happened. Instead of that movie being a studio-mandated project made to expand the DCEU, that was a movie where they let Patty Jenkins simply make a Wonder Woman movie. And it was a massive success.

Now we fast forward here to "Birds of Prey" and we've had a long string of movies where DC have simply decided to make individual movies. In the last year or two, the success of "Wonder Woman" has led DC to make the likes of "Aquaman," "Shazam!" and "Joker," all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. While, sure, I'll defend the likes of "Suicide Squad" and claim that "Justice League" wasn't a complete disaster, I'll also make the claim that "Wonder Woman" was the beginning of a new era for DC and that the movies that have followed have breathed life into a franchise that was about ready to burst into flames. Yet still there's a large group of internet haters that cling onto the philosophy that "All DC movies are terrible pieces of crap" and won't even give movies like "Birds of Prey" a chance, especially since it's technically a spin-off of "Suicide Squad," a movie that is nearly universally panned. I have to practically beg people to see "Shazam!" Even though that was one of my favorite movies of last year, people still won't see it. So we're in a bit of an awkward spot where the general public hasn't yet been converted back to trusting DC. But that'll change here soon. In the meantime, "Birds of Prey" ended up suffering with a measly $33 million opening.

No, it's not all a lost cause given that their production budget was only about $80-100 million. But it does make this a bit of an uphill battle, especially in the realm of me convincing people that it's a movie worth seeing, which I definitely think it is. Anyways, less about the history of this movie and more about the movie itself, this is a movie where they decided to give Margot Robbie the keys to the car and do whatever the heck she wants. Because she's Harley freaking Quinn. And even though that's the line they used in the trailer, we all know that that wasn't the line she used in the movie? Did you know that this movie is a hard R? Yup. And it's rather glorious. But some people haven't known. And I have no idea how you get into a movie where you don't know the rating to. It reminds me of the parents who became furious when they took their kids to see "Deadpool," yet got mad at the movie for the content their kids were subjected to. But apparently that happens. If you didn't know "Birds of Prey" was going in that direction, now you do. No sexual content here, but lots of language and a ton of unhinged violence. A lot of people have been asking for more comic book movies like this. And thanks to "Deadpool" leading the way, we're now getting them.

Granted, I'm not one to advocate a movie getting a certain rating just for the heck of it. I simply prefer to have a good movie, whatever the rating is. But Harley Quinn is such a psychotic, crazy character that her getting a movie where she gets to go bananas is rather fitting and highly amusing. She's not strapped down to a family-friendly "Suicide Squad" style of movie. She gets to do whatever she wants. Like breaking people's legs, blowing up cars and buildings, and cursing up the wazoo when she feels like it. All of that is sticking true to the character of Harley Quinn rather than the movie trying to be purposely gratuitous just to elicit a reaction. So I'm in. A PG-13 straps her down. It's like Wolverine or Deadpool. Did you ever think it was weird that Wolverine has these huge, metal claws, yet no even bled when he stabbed them? Or were you one of the millions who thought it was complete blasphemy that the first time Deadpool showed up on screen, it was with a tied up mouth? These were character decisions made to try to water them down to a kid-friendly rating in order to make money. And I'm glad that we now live in a world where we can simply make the movie that fits the character. And since Marvel is never going to make a movie like this, I'm glad DC now can.

And that's why I really liked this movie. Not because of the letter on my ticket stub. But because they took one of the greatest DC characters in Harley Quinn and gave her a movie that truly fit her. Sure, they should've simply titled this movie "Harley Quinn" instead of titling the movie "Birds of Prey," then not show the name Harley Quinn until the last part of the giant subtitle. That might've confused too many people. And now apparently some theater chains have actually started advertising the movie as "Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey," which I think is a strange thing to start doing this late in the game. But whatever. That title kinda fits more than the real movie's title. Harley Quinn has moved on from Joker. She's tired of living in his shadow and thus she is ready to make her own mark on the world. And now that she's moved on, she's learned that she's made a lot of enemies along the way who are all now more than willing to go after her now that she's left the shadow of the Joker and No. 1 on that list, for now anyways, is Ewan McGregor's iteration of Black Mask. No, he's nothing like the comic book version of Black Mask, a habit this movie makes with most of its characters, but Ewan McGregor relished in the chance of being a villain and thus does an excellent job.

With a proper villain chasing her, and utter chaos at her fingertips, Margot Robbie really shines as I think the quintessential version of Harley Quinn. She's not someone who is simply trying to be Harley Quinn or is emulating something better. She is Harley Quinn. Much in the same way that Heath Ledger is the quintessential version of the Joker or Gal Gadot is the quintessential version of Wonder Woman. Margot Robbie was able to take a classic character, and with "Suicide Squad" as her audition, she has now become an iconic comic book presence. It'll be hard to see anyone else try to be this character since Margot Robbie is now so perfect. And that's the reason why I thoroughly enjoyed the movie from start to finish. The movie is completely bonkers and a ton of fun. And it's all because Margot Robbie is owning this role and is able to do so completely unrestrained. Her presence throughout and the fun that she was having was instrumental in helping me overlook some elements of the movie that were a bit lackluster. The first part I will mention real quick is that narratively this movie is a bit all over the place. Given that Harley Quinn is the one narrating this, that kinda makes sense since she is completely unstable, but it still makes for a bit of a jarring journey.

The real issue I had with this movie comes with the actual Birds of Prey stuff. Margot Robbie is absolutely the quintessential version of Harley Quinn. Jurnee Smollett-Bell is 100 percent NOT that for Black Canary. This is where my Arrow fandom kicks in. Even though I'm not yet caught up on the final season, I've still seen Katie Cassidy portray Laurel Lance for most of her 153 episodes that she's shown up. Even though the writers royally screwed up her character halfway through, Katie Cassidy still owned it as the character or the Earth 2 version of her that they called Black Siren in the later seasons. In the last half of the show, they brought in Juliana Harkavy as Dinah Drake, a slightly alternate version of Black Canary. And if we're getting really technical, my girl Caity Lotz has also played a version of this character in the show, even though they called her White Canary. So yeah, there's options as to how to portray this character. And I'm sure the comics that I'm not as familiar with has it even different, but Jurnee Smollet-Bell's version of Black Canary, who they decide to call Dinah Lance, is only similar in name alone. She's this punk street girl who does the dirty work of Black Mask. She eventually turns "good," but she looks and acts nothing like Black Canary.

Unfortunately, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the same story for The Huntress. Granted, in "Arrow," Helena Bertinelli, aka The Huntress, only showed up for four episodes across the first few seasons, but she made a huge impact as this intimidating, powerful presence. In "Birds of Prey," they give her an elaborate backstory that provides plenty of strong motivation, but they spend most of the movie making her this mysterious presence, but when she finally shows up and starts talking, she's an unconfident wimp who is extremely disappointing. She's kinda cool with her crossbow, but she was a huge missed opportunity. So when the main ladies supporting Harley Quinn really fall flat, I have a hard time buying the concept of the Birds of Prey. If they ever do a movie version of Green Arrow, I'm really hoping they simply recast Jurnee Smollet-Bell because I don't want this version of Black Canary anywhere near Oliver Queen. Black Canary is a glorious character who deserves to be done right on film. And The Huntress is such an awesome character who deserves her own spin-off film. But I don't think Mary Elizabeth Winstead getting her own Huntress movie would be the least bit interesting. As a DC fan, I'm really upset that they fumbled big time with these iconic characters. 

And that's not even getting into Cassandra Cain, who is one version of Batgirl in the comics, or Renee Montoya, who round up this Birds of Prey gang. I'd have zero interest in seeing any of them return to the DC universe, but I really hope we haven't seen the last of Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. She deserves plenty more screenplay. And I have this underperformance at the box office doesn't cause the people at Warner Bros. to shy away from bringing her back in some capacity. There's all sorts of rumored projects that DC has been toying with, like a Harley Quinn and Joker spin-off or a Gotham City Sirens. I'd like to see some of them happen. At the very least, I'm hoping that James Gunn does a good job with her in his 2021 "Suicide Squad" sequel/reboot thing called "The Suicide Squad," because, yeah, I want to see lots more of her. Now on Facebook when I came out of the movie, I said that this is another home run for DC. OK, fine, maybe that was a slight overreaction to just getting out. This is not quite on the level of the "Joker," "Wonder Woman" or "Shazam!" But this was still a highly entertaining movie. And I hope that DC is still willing to take these experimental risks, even if it means lowering financial expectations, because I'm totally on board. My grade for "Birds of Prey" is an 8/10.

The 92nd Academy Awards: Predictions

It's Oscar time again! Albeit a bit earlier than I'm used to, which certainly throws me off in several categories. Usually the Oscars are in late February or early March. I'm not sure why they decided to have them in early February this year. Perhaps they just wanted to move the Oscars closer to the actual year they are honoring as opposed to getting too far into the year. For me, though, that throws me off because I usually spend a decent percentage of February catching up on some of the Oscar nominated movies that I missed. I tried to do the same this year, but I simply just ran out of time, especially since January was a bit of a busy month for me. But oh well. It is what it is. Life moves on. Even though said ceremony is a bit earlier than normal, I'm still here making my annual predictions post. As always, I'm also going to make my personal selections as to what I think should win. And that's the part that's going to be affected most by this early date. I'm going to have to abstain in more categories than I would like. As far as the predictions go, I honestly think this is going to be a straightforward year with few surprises. But if I'm wrong and I end up doing terrible with these predictions, all the better. A crazier night is often more exciting. So let's dive into these predictions!

Documentary Short Subject:

Nominations:

- "In the Absense" - Yi Seung & Gary Byung-Seok Kam
- "Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) - Carol Dysinger & Elena Andreicheva
- "Life Overtakes Me" - John Haptas & Kristine Samuelson
- "St. Louis Superman" - Smriti Mundhra & Sami Khan
- "Walk Run Cha-Cha" - Laura Nix & Charlotte Sandstedt

Will Win:

- "In the Absense" - Yi Seung & Gary Byung-Seok Kam

Should Win:

- "In the Absense" - Yi Seung & Gary Byung-Seok Kam

With these predictions, we start with the smaller awards and progress forward to the bigger awards. So we start with the shorts. The short film categories I always enjoy, so it's advantageous putting them first because I can raise awareness. If you have some time to watch them, which you should since they're all fairly short, you should do so. With these documentary shorts, I've only seen three of them because "Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone" and "St. Louis Superman" were two that I didn't have any access to. So of the three I've seen, "Walk Run Cha-Cha" was kinda boring, while "In the Absence" and "Life Overtakes Me" were both quite educational. I choose "In the Absence" as my personal winner because that's the one that shocked me the most and is thus the one I'm going to tell people to watch. As far as the predicted winner, I went by IMDb score last year and that worked out quite well, so I'm trying that again. With that in mind, "In the Absence" also had the highest score.

Animated Short Film:

Nominations:

- "Dcera (Daughter)" - Daria Kashcheeva
- "Hair Love" - Matthew A. Cherry & Karen Rupert Toliver
- "Kitbull" - Rosana Sullivan & Kathryn Hendrickson
- "Memorable" - Bruno Collet & JeanFrançois Le Corre
- "Sister" - Siqi Song

Will Win:

- "Kitbull" - Rosana Sullivan & Kathryn Hendrickson

Should Win:

- "Hair Love" - Matthew A. Cherry & Karen Rupert Toliver

The only two I've seen in this category are "Kitbull" and "Hair Love." The others are nowhere to be found on the internet at the moment. So it's a bit unfair for me to pick a personal favorite of the bunch. Although the two that I have seen come from Sony Pictures Animation and Pixar and that's what I'm guessing the winner is going to come down to. Kitbull is one of Pixar's SparkShorts and it as a rather adorable and emotional story about a pitbull and a black cat. "Hair Love" was shown at the beginning of "The Angry Birds Movie 2" and it was the only good part of that theatrical experience for me. Both are also on YouTube. I think voters might resonate more with the Pixar short. And it has the highest IMDb score. But "Hair Love" is a really emotional story about a dad, a daughter and their sick mom/wife. It resonated with me a little more than "Kitbull," but both are solid.

Live Action Short Film:

Nominations:

- "Brotherhood" - Meryan Joobeur & Maria Gracia Turgeon
- "Nefta Football Club" - Yves Piat & Damien Megherbi
- "The Neighbor's Window" - Marhsall Curry
- "Saria" - Bryan Buckley & Matt Lefebvre
- "A Sister" - Delphine Girard

Will Win:

- "A Sister" - Delphine Girard

Should Win:

- n/a

This is where I need to practice what I preach. I tell people to watch the shorts, but I haven't seen any of these, even though three of them are on either YouTube or Vimeo. I blame the early Oscar date for why I wasn't able to get around to these. So that makes predicting a bit hard and picking a favorite impossible. With the prediction, I'm going off my IMDb strategy here and predicting "A Sister" to win, even though I'm not quite sure what it's about. Although there's a part of me that wants to break my strategy and go for "Nefta Football Club" because I feel that one is the most accessible to people and also has a good audience reaction. But despite that, I'm sticking with "A Sister."  

International Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "Corpus Christi" - Poland
- "Honeyland" - North Macedonia
- "Les Misérables" - France
- "Pain and Glory" - Spain
- "Parasite" - South Korea

Will Win:

- "Parasite" - South Korea

Should Win:

- n/a

They changed the name of this category from best foreign film to best international feature film this year. In case you were curious. And I'm abstaining from making a pick for my personal favorite because the only one I've seen is "Parasite." Given that "Parasite" is my No. 2 film of the year, the other three would have to be quite phenomenal for me to claim in retrospect that they are better. I do want to see "Les Misérables" and "Pain and Glory," but neither have expanded far enough for me to even give them a chance, which is usually the case with this category. And "Honeyland" is going to come up again in the documentary section. I meant to watch it as it's on Hulu, but I ran out of time. "Parasite" is going to win this award, though. That's a done deal.  

Documentary Feature:

Nominations:

- "American Factory" - Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert & Jeff Reichert
- "The Cave" - Feras Fayyad, Kristine Barford & Sigrid Dyekjaer
- "The Edge of Democracy" - Petra Costa, Joanna Natasegara, Shane Boris & Tiago Pavan
- "For Sama" - Waad al-Kateab & Edward Watts
- "Honeyland" - Ljubo Stefanov, Tamara Kotevska & Atanas Georgiev

Will Win:

- "For Sama" - Waad al-Kateab & Edward Watts


Should Win:

- n/a

This category sees the most immediate consequences of the early Oscar date. I didn't get around to watching any of them and they're all accessible except for "The Cave." "Honeyland" is on Hulu. "American Factory" and "The Edge of Democracy" are on Netflix. And "For Sama" is on PBS's YouTube channel. And probably also their main site. I'll get to them. I promise. But not before posting this. As far as my prediction, this one is a bit difficult as none of them jump out at me as a front runner. I can see any of them sneaking out a win. I was going to go for "Honeyland" because of the double nomination. Maybe that's a sign that the Academy really likes it? But then I looked up the reviews of all of them. I wasn't planning on using that as my method of predicting, but the reaction to "For Sama" is through the roof, so that seems like the most obvious selection. And it did win the BAFTA award for best documentary, so that's what I'm going with. Mostly, though, I'm a bit annoyed that "Apollo 11" didn't get nominated. Did the people nominating simply think that it was less of a documentary and more of some archival footage thrown together? That's the only explanation I can come up with. That's a silly reason to not nominate it, but whatever. 

Original Song:

Nominations:

- "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away" - Randy Newman ("Toy Story 4")
- "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" - Elton John & Taron Egerton ("Rocketman")
- "I'm Standing with You" - Chrissy Metz ("Breakthrough")
- "Into the Unknown" - Idinia Menzel & AURORA ("Frozen 2")
- "Stand Up" - Cynthia Erivo ("Harriet")

Will Win:

- "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" - Elton John & Taron Egerton ("Rocketman")


Should Win:

- "Stand Up" - Cynthia Erivo ("Harriet")

The Academy is going to give Elton John his Oscar. That seems like a done deal. And I have no problem with that, especially since I want "Rocketman" to get recognition in some way and this was the only category where it got nominated. But when I pick my favorite from this category, I often lean on the song that made the biggest impact in its movie and "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" was only in the end credits. So what do I go with? The "Toy Story 4" song is a bit weird, so that's out. I'm a bit shocked that a little Christian film in "Breakthrough" got anything in terms of nominations, so it's not winning. Solid song, though, and good movie. So that leaves us with two. I love "Into the Unknown," but I'm not sure if it's the song from "Frozen 2" that had the biggest impact. That leaves me with "Stand Up," which is a strange selection since I haven't even seen "Harriet." But YouTube exists. And even if I throw out my philosophy of the song that had the biggest impact, this song is the best song of the bunch. Plus, in listening the the lyrics, I feel that it had to have had a big impact as the message is strong and the singer is the lead actress in the movie. Those who have seen "Harriet," am I right?

Original Score:

Nominations:

- "Joker" - Hildur Guðnadóttir
- "Little Women" - Alexandre Desplat
- "Marriage Story" - Randy Newman
- "1917" - Thomas Newman
- "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" - John Williams

Will Win:

- "Joker" - Hildur Guðnadóttir

Should Win:

- "Joker" - Hildur Guðnadóttir

This one is a tough choice. Hildur Guðnadóttir has been winning all of the precursors here, so I feel this is close to being a done deal, although I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas Newman snuck in a win given that I'm predicting a big night for "1917." As far as a personal choice, the scores for "Marriage Story" and "Little Women" are good, but feel like more traditional movie scores. And "The Rise of Skywalker" score is one of John Williams' least impressive Star Wars scores. With the other two, I've been listening to both of the scores for "Joker" and "1917" as I type up this post and I'm having a hard time choosing. Both scores made a huge impact on their movie and both scores are phenomenal. But I'm leaning ever so slightly to "Joker" here because it is the score that stands out as more unique. As great as the "1917" score is, you could probably plug that into any intense war movie and it would fit well. Hildur Guðnadóttir's score fits more specifically to "Joker." When you play it, I do feel it's one of the scores that will be immediately recognizable as coming from "Joker."  

Visual Effects:

Nominations:

- "Avengers: Endgame" - Dan DeLeeuw, Russell Earl, Matt Aitken & Dan Sudick
- "The Irishman" - Pable Helman, Leandro Estebecorna, Nelson Sepulveda-Fauser & Stephane Grabli
- "The Lion King" - Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones & Elliot Newman
- "1917" - Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler & Dominic Tuohy
- "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" - Roger Guyett, Neal Scanlan, Patrick Tubach & Dominic Tuohy

Will Win:

- "1917" - Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler & Dominic Tuohy

Should Win:

- "The Lion King" - Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones & Elliot Newman

Typing that up just killed me. This is a category with four great movies and to have something as lifeless as the 2019 remake of "The Lion King" beating them would feel wrong. But I have to be objective here. "The Lion King" may have been a bad movie, but those visual effects were absolutely stunning. It looked like a national geographic documentary at times, but it was all done on a computer. That I have to give props to. As far as the winner, it does feel a bit unfair that Avengers and Star Wars are going to walk away empty handed when "1917" steals this award away as this is usually the only category that the Academy gives love to the big blockbusters. But I do think that "1917" is going to sweep a lot of the technical categories.  

Sound Editing:

Nominations:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Donald Sylvester
- "Joker" - Alan Robert Murray
- "1917" - Oliver Tarney & Rachael Tate
- "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" - Wylie Stateman
- "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" - Matthew Wood & David Acord

Will Win:

- "1917" - Oliver Tarney & Rachael Tate


Should Win:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Donald Sylvester

These sound categories should go to "Ford v Ferrari" simply because of the racing sequences. I'm not the best judge of sound mixing and sound editing, but when I do my best to think about the sound, "Ford v Ferrari" is the only one that really jumps out to me. But like I said with the previous category, I feel "1917" is going to walk away with most of the technical categories. And I can't get mad at that in this instance. Creating the sound for a war film is one of the more critical elements of the genre.    

Sound Mixing:

Nominations:

- "Ad Astra" - Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson & Mark Ulano
- "Ford v Ferrari" - Pual Massey, David Giammarco & Steven A. Morrow
- "Joker" - Tom Ozanich, Dean Zupancic & Tod Maitland
- "1917" - Mark Taylor & Stuart Wilson
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler & Mark Ulano

Will Win:

- "1917" - Mark Taylor & Stuart Wilson

Should Win:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Pual Massey, David Giammarco & Steven A. Morrow

See my comments in the sound editing category. It's a bit redundant typing it up twice. As far as why "Ad Astra" got in on mixing while "The Rise of Skywalker" got in on editing is a bit of a mystery to me. But it's whatever. "Ad Astra" is one of the year's overlooked films, so I'm happy it got something. I think more people should go see it.  

Makeup and Hairstyling:

Nominations:

- "Bombshell" - Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan & Vivian Baker
- "Joker" - Nicki Ledermann & Kay Georgiou
- "Judy" - Jeremy Woodhead
- "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" - Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten & David White
- "1917" - Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis & Rebecca Cole

Will Win:

- "Bombshell" - Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan & Vivian Baker

Should Win:

- "Bombshell" - Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan & Vivian Baker

I mean, do I even have to have seen "Bombshell" in order to say it deserves this win? If so, I'm sorry. Because that's what I'm doing. I haven't seen the movie, but when I saw the trailers, all the makeup and hair work done on our lead ladies was impressive. I imagine that was a lot of hard work that had to be done everyday on set in order to make the movie work. And I think that the Academy is going to award it for that because otherwise I don't see what else takes this one home. Granted, this is the category that won "Suicide Squad" an Oscar, so you never know. Maybe they'll do something crazy and give this to "Maleficent." Or maybe "1917" takes this, too, in it's sweep of Oscar night. And if you're curious, this is the first year that they went five nominees in this category. I'm not sure why they didn't do that before. 

Film Editing:

Nominations:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Michael McCusker & Andrew Buckland
- "The Irishman" - Thelma Schoonmaker
- "Jojo Rabbit" - Tom Eagles
- "Joker" - Jeff Groth
- "Parasite" - Yang Jinmo

Will Win:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Michael McCusker & Andrew Buckland

Should Win:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - Michael McCusker & Andrew Buckland

Why in the name of all things good is "1917" not in this category? Granted, I don't think the filmmakers are going to be feeling left out as I feel it's going to win a lot. But the editing in this movie was pure wizardry. The whole concept of giving the illusion of this being done in one shot is what made the movie. "Birdman" also missed out on a nomination here, too, so maybe the editing branch of the Oscars don't like this technique or think it's not worth editing. That's an absolute shame. But with "1917" out of the way, I have to give this one to "Ford v. Ferrari." The editing work in the race sequences was breathtaking. And I think that's the way the Academy goes, too. I have no idea what else they would give it to. Now sometimes this category reflects on best picture, so if "Parasite" is in for a big night, it could steal this award.     

Costume Design:

Nominations:

- "The Irishman" - Sandy Powell & Christopher Peterson
- "Jojo Rabbit" - Mayes C. Rubeo
- "Joker" - Mark Bridges
- "Little Women" - Jacqueline Duran
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Robert Richardson

Will Win:

- "Little Women" - Jacqueline Duran


Should Win:

- "Little Women" - Jacqueline Duran

Can this please be the category where we all agree to give "Little Women" an Oscar? Maybe I'm a sucker for period pieces, but there's a lot of work done in dressing these ladies up. Although as I think about it, "Jojo Rabbit" and "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" also had to have good costume work to give the feel of their specific time periods, but I feel more work was probably done each day for "Little Women." And honest question. Why is "Joker" nominated here? There was ONE good costume made. The rest were normal people. Why not take out "Joker" and put in "Rocketman" instead? Dressing up Taron Egerton as Elton John in each sequence was probably the most impressive costume work of the year. "Joker" had 11 nominations total. No one working on that movie would lose any sleep if they had one less.  

Cinematography:

Nominations:

- "The Irishman" - Rodrigo Prieto
- "Joker" - Lawrence Sher
- "The Lighthouse" - Jarin Blaschke
- "1917" - Roger Deakins
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Robert Richardson

Will Win:

- "1917" - Roger Deakins

Should Win:

- "1917" - Roger Deakins

Need I even elaborate here? If we're not giving "1917" an editing nomination, at least we're making up for it and giving it cinematography. Roger Deakins gets his second Oscar and we go home happy. If I had to pick a second favorite here, "The Lighthouse" is it.  

Production Design:

Nominations:

- "The Irishman" - Bob Shaw & Regina Graves
- "Jojo Rabbit" - Ra Vincent & Nora Sopková
- "1917" - Dennis Gassner & Lee Sandales
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Barbara Ling & Nancy Haigh
- "Parasite" - Lee Ha Jun & Cho Won Woo

Will Win:

- "1917" - Dennis Gassner & Lee Sandales

Should Win:

- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Barbara Ling & Nancy Haigh

Again, I think "1917" is going to walk away with most of the technical categories. If it doesn't, we might have an upset on our hands when it comes to best picture. This one is certainly deserved. Recreating World War I was an impressive feat. I actually had to sit and ponder for a second for my personal pick because recreating World War I and 1960s Hollywood were both quite impressive. But in this case I'm leaning more towards 1960s Hollywood and giving Tarantino's team my personal vote. With the other three, I'm not sure the sets in the movie really stood out that much in comparison to the aforementioned two.

Animated Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" - DreamWorks Animation
- "I Lost My Body" - Xilam Animation
- "Klaus" - Sergio Pablos Animation Studio
- "Missing Link" - LAIKA
- "Toy Story 4" - Pixar Animation Studios

Will Win:

- "Toy Story 4" - Pixar Animation Studios

Should Win:

- "Toy Story 4" - Pixar Animation Studios

I am not confident in predicting this category. All the precursors have been all over the map. And even though Disney and Pixar often do quite well here, the one kryptonite for both studios on Oscar night is the sequels. Even if the sequels are well liked, the Academy often doesn't reward them. And I think it would be great if "Klaus" or "Missing Link" walked away with an Oscar in an upset. And I think it's highly likely that it happens. But the fact that "Frozen 2" completely missed out on a nomination I think gave this one to "Toy Story 4" because all the big Disney voters in the Academy no longer had to be split in their vote. They can all team together to give "Toy Story 4" the Oscar. As far as my personal choice, "Toy Story 4" was my favorite animated movie of the year and was the top honorable mention when it came to my end of year list. I was the biggest and most stubborn doubter leading up to its release. But it turned out to be the Toy Story finale that I didn't know I needed.   

Adapted Screenplay:

Nominations:

- "The Irishman" - Steven Zaillian
- "Jojo Rabbit" - Taika Waititi
- "Joker" - Todd Phillips & Scott Silver
- "Little Women" - Greta Gerwig
- "The Two Popes" - Anthony McCarten

Will Win:

- "Jojo Rabbit" - Taika Waititi

Should Win:

- "Jojo Rabbit" - Taika Waititi

I sometimes get confused with this category. Is it best adaptation of the source material or is it the best screenplay that just happened to be adapted? I always lean towards the latter. In which case, it's not about the movie itself. It's about the movie that had the best screenplay. And even though I put th lieks of "Joker" and "Little Women" higher on my end of year list, the idea behind "Jojo Rabbit" was absolutely genius. Who would've thunk that doing a comedy that makes light of Hitler and Nazi Germany would work so well? But lest you think that's all there is to it, the journey that Jojo goes through in thinking that Nazis are the greatest ever to learning the truth about them is quite brilliant. And the movie's commitment to following his point of view is magical. Thus of course I have to pick it as the best screenplay in this category. And it's been winning all the major precursors, so I feel quite confident in my selection. If there's a spoiler here it's Greta Gerwig with "Little Women." 

Original Screenplay:

Nominations:

- "Knives Out" - Rian Johnson
- "Marriage Story" - Noah Baumbach
- "1917" - Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Quentin Tarantino
- "Parasite" - Bong Joon Ho & Han Jin Won

Will Win:

- "Parasite" - Bong Joon Ho & Han Jin Won

Should Win:

- "Parasite" - Bong Joon Ho & Han Jin Won

Another solid list of screenplays here. I like all of these. The screenplays in each of these movies go a long way in making the final product work. But in dissecting this category, "Parasite" was just off the walls bonkers. The concept of doing a socially relevant heist film was great. But the directions the movie goes in the final half had me absolutely stunned. So I think it's by far the best screenplay and I think this is where the Academy gives Bong Joon Ho his Oscar. If there's a spoiler here, I think it would go to Tarantino. Although if Rian Johnson took it for "Knives Out," I would love that.  

Actress in a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Kathy Bates - "Richard Jewell"
- Laura Dern - "Marriage Story"
- Scarlett Johansson - "Jojo Rabbit"
- Florence Pugh - "Little Women"
- Margot Robbie - "Bombshell"

Will Win:

- Laura Dern - "Marriage Story"

Should Win:

- Scarlett Johansson - "Jojo Rabbit"

The acting categories I think are going to be pretty straight forward here. Laura Dern has been winning everything up to this point and I don't think there's much of a chance that there's an upset. But the fun part of this conversation is my personal selection because there's four excellent performances here. And I'm sure there's also a fifth with Margot Robbie. She's always great. But I haven't seen "Bombshell." I'm really happy that Kathy Bates got in because "Richard Jewell" was great and the best actor category was too crowded to put in Paul Walter Hauser. Florence Pugh also had a great year with three solid performances via "Fighting with My Family," "Midsommar" and "Little Women." In the latter, she was a great highlight and I wasn't sure if she was getting in, so I'm happy that she did. But my favorite performance here comes down to the Laura Dern and Scar-Jo. And although Laura Dern was fantastic in "Marriage Story," and I'm glad we'll be honoring the movie is some way, she was such an awful character in terms of how despicable she was that I think I learn more towards Scar-Jo giving a performance that left more of an impact for me. It's a quiet and a subtle performance, but it's honestly one of her best. And even when she's not in the movie, she's making a huge impact. 

Actor in a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Tom Hanks - "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood"
- Anthony Hopkins - "The Two Popes"
- Al Pacino - "The Irishman"
- Joe Pesci - "The Irishman"
- Brad Pitt - "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood"

Will Win:

- Brad Pitt - "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood"


Should Win:

- Al Pacino - "The Irishman"

This category is tough to pick a favorite because I'm honestly not the biggest fan of these performances. I don't think there's a performance that screams Oscar win, especially since there were a lot of other performances that would've been great, like Sam Rockwell for "Richard Jewell." Brad Pitt is, of course, winning this Oscar. And I'm happy about that. He's one of today's legendary actors and this will be his first Oscar win for acting. But it's between him and Al Pacino for my favorites in the category. Honestly, both of them are essentially playing themselves in their respectively films. But I think there's a slight bit more energy and passion from Al Pacino, which is why he's my choice.

Actress in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Cynthia Erivo - "Harriet"
- Scarlett Johansson - "Marriage Story"
- Saoirse Ronan - "Little Women"
- Charlize Theron - "Bombshell"
- Renée Zellweger - "Judy"

Will Win:

- Renée Zellweger - "Judy"

Should Win:

- Saoirse Ronan - "Little Women"

This is another category wherein the early Oscars ceremony killed me. I know that Renée Zellweger is winning. She's been sweeping the board here. But I have not seen three of these movies, that being "Judy," "Harriet" and "Bombshell." I was going to at least watch "Judy" and "Harriet" this week. But again, I ran out of time. So I'm picking between Scar-Jo and Saoirse. Although honestly, knowing my personal history, I tend to lean more towards acting performances wherein a historical figure is perfectly portrayed. So had I been diligent, I think I may have gone with Renée Zellweger. But between the two I have seen, I lean ever so slightly towards Saoirse. She's honestly one of my favorite actresses today and she gives a passionate, powerful and relevant performance in "Little Women." So did Scar-Jo in "Marriage Story." But in that movie, I think I'd say Adam Driver is the one that made the biggest impact on me. And since Scar-Jo is a double nominee this year, I gave her the Oscar for "Jojo," so it's love across the board here. Although the bigger story here is why the frack did Lupita Nyongo not get in for "Us"? That was easily the best performance by an actress this year.  

Actor in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Antonio Banderas - "Pain and Glory"
- Leonardo DiCaprio - "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood"
- Adam Driver - "Marriage Story"
- Joaquin Phoenix - "Joker"
- Jonathan Pryce - "The Two Popes"

Will Win:

- Joaquin Phoenix - "Joker"

Should Win:

- Joaquin Phoenix - "Joker"

If we didn't live in a world where Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Joker wasn't a part of this category, this would be a tough one to pick. There's a huge part of me that wants Adam Driver to win an Oscar. And Leo was also great, as always. Antonio Banderas I'm sure was great, too, but "Pain and Glory" didn't expand fast enough for me to see it. I do like the sentiment of him finally getting an Oscar. He's done so many great things that I was surprised to learn that this was his very first. So I can accept that. Jonathan Pryce did fine in "The Two Popes," but with so many great options in this category, he might've been 20th on my personal list. I wanted Adam Sandler to get in for "Uncut Gems" and/or Taron Egerton for "Rocketman." But all of that is moot both in terms of predictions and in personal picks. Joaquin Phoenix gave a legendary performance in "Joker" and I'm glad that he's been unanimously selected for this category.  

Directing:

Nominations:

- Martin Scorsese - "The Irishman"
- Todd Phillips - "Joker"
- Sam Mendes - "1917"
- Quentin Terantino - "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood"
- Bong Joon Ho - "Parasite"

Will Win:

- Sam Mendes - "1917"

Should Win:

- Bong Joon Ho - "Parasite"

I often have a tough time judging the directing of a movie because most of that work is behind the scenes stuff that you aren't always privy to as an audience. But if I do my best anyways, I think "Parasite" had a lot more moving pieces that required the director's hands on work to make it all come together. With Martin Scorsese, Todd Phillips and Quentin Tarantino, I feel we had actors doing a big portion of the heavy lifting to make those movies work. And with "1917," it was a lot of the technical marvels that made it special. Which is why I lean towards Bong Joon Ho as my personal choice. But I think all five did great work in their movies, so I won't be upset at whoever wins. But based on the buzz I'm hearing, this seems like it's coming down to Sam Mendes and Bong Joon Ho, with Mendes as the front runner. But I think the Academy is going to give Bong Joon Ho the Oscar for best original screenplay, which is why I'm saying Sam Mendes gets best director. A split could happen, though.

Best Picture:

Nominations:

- "Ford v Ferrari" - 20th Century Fox
- "The Irishman" - Netflix
- "Jojo Rabbit" - Fox Searchlight Pictures
- "Joker" - Warner Bros.
- "Little Women" - Columbia Pictures
- "Marriage Story" - Netflix
- "1917" - Universal Pictures
- "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" - Columbia Pictures
- "Parasite" - NEON

Will Win:

- "1917" - Universal Pictures

Should Win:

- "Joker" - Warner Bros.

In terms of all of these best picture nominees, I honestly think this is one of the best years for this category in recent memory. There's nine nominees and seven of them made my top 10 list of the year. In all of the years that I've done top 10 lists, which dates back to 2011, I've never been so in sync with the Academy. And I'm not sure if this will ever be repeated. So really, I'm happy with any of these movies winning best picture. As far as my prediction goes, I just think "1917" has all of the momentum right now and it's been winning most of the important precursors. When it comes to the best picture category at the Oscars, the voting is done my preferential ballot, which means it's often less about the movie that people love the most, but rather the one that they hate the least. And I think that also helps "1917" because it seems like the safest choice. With every one of the others, I could come up with a reason as to why people wouldn't like that. That's harder to do with "1917." At this point, I think "Parasite" is the spoiler with an off chance that "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" gets the win. The other six I think are out of the race. Given that I'm picking "1917," don't be surprised if "Parasite" pulls it off because I've actually been wrong on my best picture prediction for several years straight. As far as my personal choice, "Joker" was my favorite movie of the year. So do I really need to do any elaborating there? I think that pick is pretty straightforward.