Cats (2019)

Film: Cats (2019)
Stars: James Corden, Judi Dench, Jason Derulo, Idris Elba, Jennifer Hudson, Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, Rebel Wilson, Francesa Hayward
Director: Tom Hooper
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

The first Broadway play I saw was Promises, Promises starring Kristin Chenoweth and Sean Hayes.  It was a magical experience, one that set off a love affair with Broadway that continues to this day (every time I go to New York, I see 4-5 shows on the stage).  But a decade before that, I got my proper introduction to high-caliber productions when I was in London, and saw Cats in the West End (I still have my Playbill, and can see it from where I'm typing this).  I loved it-Cats would not go on to be one of my favorite plays, though thanks to buying a CD of the soundtrack I know every word of it (Phantom would be the musical that would dominate my young, closeted high school years), but it has a special place in my heart as a result of its introduction for me to the world of theater.  I have no problem with its nonsensical plot and occasionally bizarre musical numbers, and was one of the few people when the trailer arrived who wasn't prone to mockery (though I did think the digital fur was a step in the wrong direction).  As a result, I was going to see this movie no matter how bad the reviews were, as I wanted to relive the magic, if that was still possible, of the first time I saw this production.

(Spoilers Ahead) The plot of Cats is at once very easy to explain and rather confusing if you start asking questions.  Essentially, a group of cats get together each year and audition for Old Deuteronomy (Dench), an aging and wise cat, for a chance to, well, die, and be reborn as a new feline.  This year we have a variety of candidates, ranging from Gus the Theatre Cat (McKellen) to Jennyanydots (Wilson) to Bustopher Jones (Corden), but the clear frontrunner for the audience is the cat-in-the-shadows Grizabella (Hudson), who is seen as a former glamour cat by all except the new cat Victoria (Hayward), who sees her potential.  However, the wicked Macavity (Elba), threatens to upend the whole operation as he slowly kidnaps all of the cats who are competing so that Old Deuteronomy will be forced to pick him as the cat that gets a new life.  In the end, Macavity is punished for his wickedness, and Grizabella is sent off to start a new adventure in the next world, while Victoria joins the rest of the "Jellicle" cats in the streets, finally finding a family.

Here's where I am going to start the contrarian reviews-I didn't hate Cats, in the same way that I didn't hate the stage play.  I know it's been long fashionable to hate the latter, something that's going to quickly become true of the former, but I don't get the vitriol.  This is weird-something like Ford vs. Ferrari is a story that's particularly dreadful.  There are fun musical numbers in this film.  Obviously there's the "Memory" showstopper from Hudson, who is generally a questionable choice as an actor but can pull off great character work through song, and does so here.  But we also have a great tap number in "Skimbleshanks" and the infectious opening "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats," and I even liked what Jason Derulo did with "Rum Tum Tugger."  Cats is a musical that's more for dancing than it is for singing, something alien to our "park and bark" modern-era of cinematic musicals.

That said, there are definitley problems with the film.  Putting aside the bizarre sexualization of the cats, the CGI is clunky.  While there are moments (like Taylor Swift's descent during "Macavity") where the cats look pretty much perfectly in sync with the fur and their bodies, other times Jason Derulo & Francesca Hayward genuinely look like floating heads on the screen.  Any time we aren't singing we have a problem, as Wilson & Corden doing their schtick (which genuinely would work on me-I don't dislike them like Twitter seems to do) feels a bit too reliant on cat-to-human jokes and less on genuine humor.  The sound mixing is downright dreadful on a few numbers-when your orchestra is drowning out Jennifer freaking Hudson, there's a problem in the control room.  Worst of all is the direction-Hooper doesn't know how to adapt this to the real world in the way he's supposed to (this was a problem to a lesser degree with Les Miserables), and frequently it feels like a filmed play in the worst possible way.  The "Ad-Dressing of the Cats" is awful and he deserves to be on film probation for making Dame Judi Dench endure such a travesty, with her breaking the fourth wall and singing that clunky number with every audience member wondering if the film was about to end thanks to the poor pacing.

So I'm going with 2-stars.  I considered three because honestly there were moments I felt found the weird wonder of the "now and forever" Cats and I feel like the internet is being collectively unfair to the film by comparing it to a travesty like Battlefield Earth.  It's become clear that at this point every actor in this movie needs to get their agents on the phone fast and book a crowdpleaser, as this isn't just a "derided" movie, it's the kind that takes on John Travolta's career and throws it in the garbage.  But it's also not a good movie-the failings are there, even if it's not "the worst film ever made."  So should you see it?  I think it is the sort of film that should probably be seen to be believed, but if you know the stage show by heart you'll be entertained, though not surprised.

OVP: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Film: Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Stars: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson
Director: Bill Condon
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Production Design, Costume)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I'm going to admit I'm a little bit perturbed at Disney right now, so perhaps this isn't the best day to be writing a review of their biggest hit of the year, but I did give them a (very rare) 5-star review yesterday for the first time in seven years, so I suppose tackling Beauty and the Beast in the same weekend makes sense.  This movie, largely borrowing the same motif as their classic 1991 Oscar winner, is one in a succession of live-action adaptations of Disney's favorite animated adventures; after all, we've already seen Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, and Sleeping Beauty brought to the big-screen (with Dumbo, Aladdin, Mulan, and Peter Pan all on their way), so it made sense that arguably their second-wave Disney high-water mark should be brought to life.  Unfortunately, life is what is missing in a dreary, over-produced spectacle that is heavier on getting people to buy merchandise than making an actual movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is a tale as old as time, and so really, you don't need a spoiler alert.  If you've seen the original, there's almost nothing new here, other than the implication that the characters are becoming less human as the enchantment continues, rather than it just changing with the fall of the last pedal.  Otherwise, the only newness is a trio of Alan Menken songs, and of course getting to see the animation brought to life by the magic of visual effects.

That's it-there's nothing particularly fresh to the story, which means it's kind of pointless; if you don't add anything, people can watch the original.  It's hard to knock the film entirely, as it's a good story, but there's no heart here, there's no soul in this movie.  Emma Watson is a fine actress, I'm not one of the people who totally are against her as a performer (I particularly liked The Bling Ring and The Perks of Being a Wallflower), but she is badly miscast here as she doesn't have the voice of Paige O'Hara.  Really, though, other than Audra McDonald (who is such a better vocalist than the rest of the cast it's kind of distracting) no one here is a particularly compelling singer, or at least giving their all (not even McGregor, who as Moulin Rouge! indicated, has the ability to sing well, though that was admittedly 16 years ago so he might not be in the same vocal prowess).  Even though this is a musical, the sound mixing is poor and the singing mediocre, and as a result it frequently feels like we're seeing a cheap knockoff version of the movie, except there's movie stars in literally every corner of the film.

This gaudiness resounds throughout the picture.  I texted my brother during the iconic dance sequence, and said "it seems strange that the worst dress Jacqueline Durran puts on Belle is the yellow ballgown," and I stand behind that.  Durran, one of the best costume designers in motion pictures today, is usually so on-point, but feels saddled here by trying to live within the memory of our childhoods, rather than giving us something unique like Sandy Powell did in Cinderella.  It makes the film feel clunky, like a commercial more than its own product.  Even the wonder of the library scene or the occasional flourishes outside the confines of Disney feel stretched (literally the only non-animated part I liked was Dan Stevens' tiny growl at the end).  Menken's best new number (probably "Evermore") is considerably worse than the least of his original numbers, and no one in the film finds the right tone in their characters.  I tried really hard to see if I was just judging this movie against the original too harshly, as it's one of my favorite films, but even objectively, this movie is dreck, and combined with The Jungle Book is proof that Disney needs to stop trying to force nostalgia down our throats because eventually even the originals are going to feel lukewarm.

Also, before I go insane-did anyone else notice the weird microsecond editing choice of flashing Audra McDonald before the credits of the movie, or was that just my Netflix glitching?  I can find no discussion of this anywhere, so giving my sanity a rest would be greatly appreciated.

Oscar-Connected Lost Films, Part 2

Last week, we chronicled through the Top 10 missing Oscar-nominated films (the films that keep my OVP-loving heart up at night knowing that I'm doomed to failure even if I manage to hit most of the pictures).  Today, however, I decided to try a slightly different tack (one that includes a bit more of a list).  Here we have lost films starring Oscar-nominated actors or directed by Oscar-nominated directors.  While this list is far from complete, these stand out in my mind as some of the more important feature-length films that are hopefully still in someone's attic.

Note: While I couldn't include every missing feature-length film starring an Oscar nominee, I'm curious about which ones are on your "where is it?!?' list, so please share below in the comments!

12. Tenderloin (1928)

Directed by future Oscar winner Michael Curtiz and starring Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel, the film is in a weird place in history as it's the second Vitaphone feature, and reportedly featured the first feature where actors actually spoke their lines (though the dialogue was so hammy people actually laughed when it first came out).  Considering its place in history, you'd think this would have hung on, but it's still considered lost.

11. Lilies of the Field (1924)

While it shares the name of an Oscar-winning film, it actually has no connection to the movie starring Sidney Poitier.  Instead, it gets its AMPAS connection through leading lady Corinne Griffith, who would be one of the first women ever to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress (in The Divine Lady).  The film sounds pretty messed up, and I'm curious to see how the sexual politics of the period play out, but like all of the other eleven films on this list, it's lost for now.

10. Red Sky at Morning (1944)

One of several missing films from the early career of future Oscar-winner Peter Finch, this one struck me as odd simply because of its late release date.  While portions of films from the 1940's and 50's are missing (most famously A Star is Born), this entire movie (about a sailor who falls in love with the wife of a captain) is completely gone, which is unusual for a film with a now recognizable star.

9. The Promise (1969)

By far the latest film on this list, and the only one that features a currently living Oscar nominee that I can find.  Sir Ian McKellen, very early in his career, made the first big-screen adaptation of an Aleksei Abuzov play, that is now considered lost.  Weirdly, it featured another actor who'd gained some fame the year previous (John Castle) for starring in an Oscar-winning film (The Lion in Winter) and was reusing Oscar-winning sets from the previous year's Best Picture winner Oliver!, so how this remains lost is also a mystery.

8. Men of Tomorrow (1932)

One of those films where you didn't know what you had until it was gone, the film actually stars Maurice Braddell and Joan Gardner, but it was the supporting cast that calls out a bit more ferociously, featuring Oscar-nominee Merle Oberon and future Oscar-winner Robert Donat in his film debut.  The film apparently was a bit salacious and had to be trimmed for re-distribution (and was dubiously marketed in the United States in 1935 because Oberon and Donat were headliners at that point, even though they weren't the stars of the picture).

7. White Man (1924)

One of the earliest films on this list, White Man would be a largely forgotten film starring Kenneth Harlan and Alice Joyce were it not for a bit part (that of Joyce's brother) played by one of the biggest leading men in Hollywood history: Clark Gable.  Yes, the future Oscar-winner made his film debut in a small role in this film, now largely lost (perhaps due to the fact that Gable wouldn't be a huge star for a bit longer after this).

6. Convention City (1933)

A plethora of big name actors are featured in this film, including Joan Blondell, Adolphe Menjeu, Dick Powell, and Mary Astor, 75% of which were Oscar nominees (Menjeu even was a nominee already at that point).  But what sets this film apart is that it is apparently quite scandalous, with a number of double entendres and Blondell's costume budget being smaller than Jack Warner wanted it to be.  As a result, it's one of those movies that you want to see more out of shock value than anything else.

5. The Forward Pass (1929)

This would be worthy of inclusion simply based on the premise alone: how many movies in cinematic history have ever been made about football, and turned into a musical?  Throw in Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and future Oscar-winner Loretta Young and the intrigue is factored up.  But it's a cameo by a 22-year-old John Wayne (in one of only a couple of his films that are considered lost) that makes me truly curious-what was John Wayne like at 22?!?

4. The Callahans and the Murphys (1927)

Toward the top more for the director of the film, and what he was able to do with his leading lady in other films.  George W. Hill, while never an Oscar nominee, managed to helm two major Oscar contenders early on in the Academy's history: The Big House, which was an early Best Picture nominee, and Min and Bill, which won Marie Dressler (who stars in Callahans and the Murphys) her only Oscar.

3. For the Love of Mike (1927)

Another film with a man who'd later bring his leading lady an Oscar, but here we have even bigger names than Hill and Dressler: Claudette Colbert and Frank Capra.  Seven years before both of them won Oscars for It Happened One Night, these two screen icons made a silent picture (Colbert's only one), which bombed and almost caused Colbert to quit the movies.  Thankfully she didn't and went on to make decades of classics, but this one is sadly not one that can be discovered by new film audiences.

2. Hollywood (1923)

What gets a film you've never heard of into the Top 2?  Well, it's that literally every major star of this era somehow managed to make it into the film!  Yes, while the leads are a pair of unknowns (Hope Drown and Luke Cosgrave), you have everyone from Will Rogers to Douglas Fairbanks Sr. to Baby Peggy, as well as six-Oscar nominated/winning entertainers (Gloria Swanson, Betty Compson, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Mary Astor, and Cecil B. DeMille), all made more impressive as the Oscars hadn't even happened when this came out.  Throw in one of the only screen appearances Fatty Arbuckle made after his arrest, and you have arguably the biggest curiosity on this list.

1. The Mountain Eagle (1927)
An easy choice for the list, as The Mountain Eagle is the only lost film of Alfred Hitchcock's extensive filmography.  Hitch reportedly hated the film (and the production was apparently a nightmare) and was glad it was gone, but for the legions of his fans (myself included) it remains a film that we most hope is discovered in someone's attic.  I mean, it's hard to really compare with finally getting the only missing feature-length film from Alfred Hitchcock.

Mr. Holmes (2015)

Film: Mr. Holmes (2015)
Stars: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Hattie Morahan, Hiroyuki Sanada
Director: Bill Condon
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I frequently talk about how films have a case of the "handsomes" (at least I talk about this with myself-probably not with other human beings, but I feel like conversation with other human beings may be overrated...or I may need to get out of the house more).  This is when a film is just fine-it works well, it is attractive on paper, but it's a bit boring.  It's kind of what three-star ratings were invented for, and I frequently attribute the term to movies that are too good to be bad, but not remotely good enough to be excited about.  There's a flip side of this, though, that I also frequently discuss (yes, with myself...we get it, I need a life), which is a film having a case of the "pleasants."  These are the sorts of films that are extremely easy-going, rainy day movies that your aunt can't stop talking about, frequently taking place in Britain or some foreign country where the actors are shockingly over fifty and no one seems to give a damn or push them to a supporting part.  The sorts of movies that star Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, and yes, he's now at that stage of his life where they star Ian McKellen.  These are the movies that arthouses adore because they provide strong counter-programming in the summer when arthouses are struggling for content before Oscar season grants them reprieve (get to your arthouses in the summer people-that's the only way we get better movies year-round!).  I generally tend to like a "pleasant" film over a "handsome" one if only because it's usually more fun, though I will acknowledge its limitations.  That's pretty much how I felt about Mr. Holmes-fun but nothing particularly challenging to go along with the lightness.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about an aging Sherlock Holmes (McKellen), a weird hybrid of the character written by Arthur Conan Doyle, here both a real-life person and the famed character (here it is John Watson, his assistant, and not Doyle who had written the stories).  At the age of 93 the retired detective is dealing with Alzheimer's, and frequently finds himself slipping back to old cases, and realizing that he cannot remember how his last case ended.  Dr. Watson embellished in the stories and gave the book and film a happy ending when Holmes knows that not to be the case (there's probably one of the best cameos you're going to see this year when Nicholas Rowe, the star of the 1980's Young Sherlock Holmes, makes a cameo as the Basil Rathbone-influenced Sherlock Holmes that is shown onscreen-it's meta to the max, but also the cheekiest bit of clever).  As a result, Holmes must discover once again a case, this time one that he solved decades earlier, with the help of a young aspiring boy who idolizes him named Roger (Parker) and to the chagrin of his mother Mrs. Munro (Linney).

The film is strongest when it's focusing entirely on Holmes himself.  Ian McKellen is one of my favorite working actors and it's been a while, quite frankly, since I've seen him as something other than Magneto or Gandalf, so it's a nice refresher on how charming he can be outside of such a role (actually, it's been a long time for everybody-this is the first time that McKellen has appeared onscreen as neither of those two characters since 2006's The Da Vinci Code, which is sort of staggering to believe).  Particularly in his younger self he finds so much life in this Holmes fellow-he might not be the man we have known for years, the wonkish loner from Baker Street precisely, but he is in fact still wry and wanting to solve the case, and he still does his "just look at him" trick which is bliss.  I have admittedly read these stories since I was a kid (I am a hopeless sucker for mysteries) so I have a lot of love for this particular detective, and though I like seeing him brought out and stretched by reality, it was still fun to see where his original case landed, which was roughly where I expected but still quite fascinating to see how it destroyed Holmes' detective agency.

The "present-day" scenes, however, are not as intriguing.  We see Holmes interact with a bratty kid named Roger, who dotes on Holmes and disparages his kind, hard-working mother, who is played as a saint.  I don't want to say too much about Linney here, since I've missed her something fierce on movie screens in her two year absence (and quite frankly I haven't seen a new Laura Linney movie since The Savages, which is heart-breaking considering how marvelous she was on The Big C which also went off the air two years ago), but this is just okay.  She's Laura Linney so it's very watchable, but she's not stretching any imaginations here and it's hard to fathom the woman who deservedly won Oscar nominations for You Can Count on Me and The Savages is being wasted here sharing cliches with Ian McKellen and getting nothing from a bratty child who seems to be a clone of that kid from Love Actually.  Well, at least she's not going the Frances McDormand route and starring in a Michael Bay sequel (oh wait, Laura Linney's in the next Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie-it's late enough on a Saturday, you can get that drink).

With the present-day mysteries being a letdown in the Japanese scenes and relatively obvious based on the heavy foreshadowing for what is killing the bees, while we get solid acting from McKellen (it's kind of heartbreaking to watch Ian McKellen, hero for so many, including me, slowly start to age but he does it with a very believable sharpness that I admired for his character), the film is a mixed bag.  The past scenes are worth the price of admission and cheeky good fun, and the film never stops being watchable, but the ending is sappy to the extreme and I wasn't wowed by Milo Parker's crucial role as Roger, Holmes' young Watson stand-in.  Overall we'll go with three stars-if you love "pleasant" films as I do and wish for more mysteries on the big-screen, buy the ticket.  And if you have, share your thoughts below!  What did you think of this latest outing of the Sherlock Holmes character?  What director will take pity on all of us and give Laura Linney a decent part again (Bill Condon, the guy who got her her second Oscar nomination, seemed like a solid bet so this is pretty depressing that it becomes a "mom" role)?  Let's see some thoughts!

OVP: X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Film: X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Stars: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Peter Dinklage, Evan Peters
Director: Bryan Singer
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I have never been a big fan of the X-Men movie franchise.  There, I said it, and I stand by it.  I’m not sure why this is, particularly since I’m not averse to comic book movies (I particularly liked the Nolan Batman franchise and The Avengers films), but the X-Men movies may hit too close to home.  My brother, mom, and I would read Marvel comics all the time when we were kids.  We would go to the local Pamida (I swear, I’m not that old…I just grew up in a very small, old-fashioned town) and my brother and I would twirl the two comic book stands, pouring over every issue, wondering which one we’d spend our allowance on (again, I was born in the 1980’s-not that old).  Almost without fail one of us would buy one of the X-Men series and check-in on Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the gang.

The problem for me with the X-Men franchise has been both that it plays fast and loose with the chronology of the comic books (this is the ultimate nerd gripe, and one with little merit, and one that I truly hate, but one that I’m man enough to admit sways my opinion), but also because everything onscreen feels so lifeless.  For every inspired piece of casting (Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Michael Fassbender as Magneto), there’s an equally lazy piece of casting (Halle Berry as Storm, James Marsden as Cyclops, and (not to earn enemies here) Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique).  The films also seem to obsess too frequently on one central character (in the original films this would be Jackman’s Wolverine, in the latter franchise it appears to be Lawrence’s Mystique and the Professor X/Magneto relationship) while teasing us with dozens of great characters from the series that appear as nothing more than props (Bishop, anyone?).

(Spoilers Ahead) That being said, I did go into this particular installment with a thrill, as Days of Future Past is easily my favorite of all of the X-Men stories.  I loved the way that it put the focus on a few characters that never get any sort of limelight (particularly Kitty Pryde, one of the best characters in the X-Men, who becomes the hero of the story even though she’s one of the most junior members of the X-Men at the time), and keeps the amount of characters to a relative minimum, with a ticking clock toward doom.  It’s a great dystopian plotline, and I remember wearing this comic book novel OUT as a child.

Of course, I knew I was in trouble when the directors didn’t have enough confidence in the story to put Ellen Page, Oscar-nominee and total badass, at the center of the film but instead shifted that over to the stalwart Hugh Jackman.  I truly hate when people complain about the source material being amended or upended for the screen, but I feel like this greatly limited the story and once again put Wolverine, whose story has been played out over these many, many films, at the center of the movie.  As a result, we see most of the next few scenes through his eyes instead of Shadowcat’s, and we get a similar perspective of him and his constant narcissistic attitude, rather than someone who could perhaps give us a smarter and more forward-thinking reaction to this “new” old world.

However, comic book nerds can’t have everything they want, and in some cases, they get something they didn’t know they want, and it’s completely fair to say that the film peaks in the first half hour or so of the film with the introduction of Quicksilver (Evan Peters of American Horror Story fame).  Quicksilver in the comic books is a very serious, driven and morally conflicted character who is the son of Magneto, whereas here he is a stoner loser kid who spends his day pulling pranks and eating junk food (there is a joke about his lineage, though unless you’re a complete comic book nerd it sailed right over your head).  I loved every second of Peters’ ridiculousness, as it was great comic foil for a film that desperately needed it, and because it allowed Professor X, the Beast, and Wolverine to have an eye-rolling common frenemy.  Plus, Peters is so damn delightful as Quicksilver (Aaron Johnson has a tall order for when he appears as the same character coming up), it’s hard not to smile and wish the entire film was really about him.

Alas, it is not, and the film continues toward familiar treads (Mystique is moral, then she’s not…Magneto is moral, then he’s not…Wolverine is quick-tempered, then he’s not…Professor X is short-sighted, then he’s not…and this is really all the characters we have time for despite casting nearly a dozen other big-name actors in these parts).  The films never realize their full potential because they’re too focused on spoon-feeding us more of what we already know.  I get that Lawrence and Jackman are the biggest names in the films, but what made the X-Men so fun and original is that you saw combinations of different mutants each week fighting together, and that the focus, like a television show, would shift from one main character to the next.  Here that’s simply not the case, and as a result you see some of the character and actor flaws on-display (Jackman’s Wolverine, for example, becomes boring to watch all the time since he essentially is immortal).  This wouldn’t be a problem if this were just one film, but it’s not-it’s a multi-film, major motion picture franchise, and it’s one that keeps rehashing and retelling without a true story arc to connect it.  Even The Avengers gets this, giving us different flirtations with Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk in one-off films instead of just spending all of their time with Iron Man.  Until the creators of X-Men understand this, they’re going to just be telling middling versions of truly great comic books.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you agree that Peters is best-in-show?  If you do agree with me, which character would you like to be central to the next film?  And what X-Men are you holding out hopes to be in the next movie (Gambit and Jubilee spring to mind for myself)?  Share in the comments!

2014 Tony Predictions

There is no time of the year that I miss New York more than April.  The city is just starting to bustle from the long winter, with the park glowing and coming to life, and everyone out enjoying the weather before it becomes unbearably hot (New York in July is like the fifth circle of hell...if the fifth circle of hell also sold you $17 movie tickets and smelled like garbage when it rained).

But the real draw for me is the opening of all of the Broadway musicals and plays-honestly, I don't understand how people can pass up the chance to see so much vibrant, wonderful theater if they live there (except, you know, the cost), and it makes me want to figure out some way to skip paying rent for a month just so I can see people sing to the rafters and soliloquize raw pain on the stage.

This all said, I was going to give a list of some of the shows that I most wanted to see, but then I realized that the Tony nominations were already going to be announced on Tuesday, and though I sadly haven't seen any of the shows (argh...why do I not save my money better?!?), I figured I should give my two cents on what will be nominated in the big eight categories.  While I'm going through these, I'll tell you what I would see if I managed to win the lottery tomorrow (actually, if I won the lottery tomorrow I'd see them all as I'm a theater-junkie, but I digress).

Best Play

All the Way

Casa Valentina

Mothers and Sons

The Velocity of Autumn

Tyne Daly in Mothers and Sons

The Nominees: Can we first off just say thank god that I'm only predicting the nominees right now?  In the many years since I started following the Tony Awards, I have never seen a race this wide open for both Best Play and Musical.  Usually there's a War Horse or Book of Mormon waiting in the wings, ready to take everything in sight-this year, though, there's not a lot of frontrunners.  Velocity of Autumn and All the Way have that nice combination of critical acclaim and prestige, and surely are going to be included.  Casa Valentina has the magnetism of Harvey Fierstein and Joe Mantello, both of whom are frequently a fixture at the Tony Awards and makes me think this is included.  There's a few other plays that spring to mind (Outside Mullingar, Act One) that could make the cut, but I think absence makes the heart grow fonder for Terrence McNally, and his Mothers and Sons is my upset surprise.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Mothers and Sons seems the most interesting to me, and seeing Tyne Daly on a Broadway stage is a magnificent thing.

Best Musical

Aladdin

The Bridges of Madison County

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Rocky

Kelli O'Hara and Steven Pasquale in The Bridges of Madison County

The Nominees: I believe theoretically both of these races could go five-wide, but the field typically stays at four, so I'm going to stay there.  Aladdin is probably the surest thing of the bunch, even if that doesn't necessarily translate to a win-Disney has a major push, the show has gotten much better notices than it did in previews, and it's certain to be the biggest hit of the bunch.  It's hard to believe that If/Then isn't there, even if it isn't AMAZING in the reviews, but the tepid response (despite boffo box office thanks to Idina) has me place it at fifth place.  Rocky is probably the biggest news of the year (people will not stop talking about it), and will make it.  The final two I'm basing off of reviews-Kelli O'Hara's getting excellent notices in Bridges (and she's the Midas touch of nominations, even if she can't win a trophy to save her life) and Gentleman has been far more successful than I initially expected.  Throw in the jukebox hit Beautiful (featuring the music of Carole King) and you probably have some combination of the four nominees.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: I would give it to Bridges...it was going to be Aladdin but you just know that one's going to go on tour and Kelli O'Hara having steamy sex tops boxing any day of the week, in my opinion.

Best Revival of a Play

The Glass Menagerie

A Raisin in the Sun

Twelfth Night

Waiting for Godot

Cherry Jones and Zachary Quinto in The Glass Menagerie

The Nominees: Rule Number One of the Tony Awards is to not discount Scott Rudin, so A Raisin in the Sun, despite it just being revived, will surely be back for another go-around, though Rudin will have to accept his loss to The Glass Menagerie, one of the only sure things about this year's Tony Awards.  Other star-encrusted shows like James Franco's Of Mice and Men and Rachel Weisz's Betrayal will probably take the backseat to more celebrated works like Twelfth Night and Waiting for Godot, though this being the Tony Awards, they could have one of their celebrity mood swings and try to put a movie star in the audience.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: It would have to go to Glass Menagerie-Tennessee Williams can be breathtaking on-stage, and I've heard it was a miracle to behold.

Best Revival of a Musical

Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Les Miserables

Violet

Sutton Foster in Violet

The Nominees: An exceedingly light year for this category, the only other production that could be in contention would be Cabaret, which is getting a lackluster response and seems very similar to the 1998 production of the play.  Violet and Hedwig are both making their Broadway debuts, but have been around long-enough that they will probably go with this much easier category for a nomination.  Who wins is a great question-does Les Miz get in based on box office, or does that still seem "been there, done that" after it hauled off at the Oscars so recently?

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Violet, hands down-Sutton Foster is perfection.

Best Actor in a Play

Bryan Cranston, All the Way

Ian McKellen, Waiting for Godot

Mark Rylance, Richard III

Patrick Stewart, Waiting for Godot

Denzel Washington, A Raisin in the Sun

Mark Rylance

The Nominees: Mark Rylance's performance in Jerusalem remains the most impressive thing I've ever seen on a Broadway stage-thinking about the final moments of that play still sends shivers down my spine.  He is the Daniel Day-Lewis of the theater, and I doubt that he misses this year, even if that means he gets nominated twice (he could make it for Twelfth Night for featured).  Honestly, this lineup seems relatively set.  Tony Shalhoub's work in Act One is a possibility, but I think that Denzel with his movie star appeal (and Scott Rudin pushing) will be able to trump him.  And James Franco-sorry dude, but picking fights with critics isn't going to help you one bit.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: It's hard to pass on Rylance, but Professor X and Magneto on the same stage-that's impossible to turn down.

Best Actress in a Play

Toni Collette, The Realistic Joneses

Tyne Daly, Mothers and Sons

Cherry Jones, The Glass Menagerie

Audra McDonald, Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill

Estelle Parsons, The Velocity of Autumn

Audra McDonald

The Nominees: I'm still not entirely sure how Audra is in a play with the entire Billie Holiday discograpy playing during Lady Day, but that's a discussion for a different time.  As it is, she will go for her record sixth Tony win likely against a woman who has never managed to pull off a trophy despite four nominations and decades in the theater, Estelle Parsons.  I am going to guess that sentiment (and the sure realization that McDonald will have others) will give this to Parsons (keep in mind they gave Cicely Tyson the trophy last year), and that they will be joined by Tyne Daly and Cherry Jones, both getting strong notices.  The last shot is a hodgepodge, but I'm going to go with one of my brother's favorite actors, and a movie star to boot, Ms. Toni Collette, an actress the Tonys honored with a nomination some fourteen years ago for The Wild Party.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Audra, forever and always.

Best Actor in a Musical

Jefferson Mays, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Neil Patrick Harris, Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Ramin Karimloo, Les Miserables

Andy Karl, Rocky

Steven Pasquale, The Bridges of Madison County

Andy Karl

The Nominees: It's unfathomable that after all the years he's spent promoting Broadway and championing the Tony Awards that NPH's comeback to the Great White Way wouldn't be honored in some fashion-I find it difficult, quite frankly, to see him losing though Jefferson Mays is a constant presence on Broadway and hasn't won in a decade.  Andy Karl (who like a certain leading lady in the Best Actress category, was part of the wonderfully charming Mystery of Edwin Drood revival recently) should get his first nomination as Rocky Balboa, and Steven Pasquale's sexy and brooding leading man in Bridges should also make the cut.  For the final slot, I'm going with the tried-and-true Jean Valjean, which won Colm Wilkinson a nomination in the original production and probably can do the same for Karimloo.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: The more I read about it, the more, honestly, that I kind of want to see Rocky, which isn't remotely my cup of tea.  The heart wants what it wants, I guess.

Best Actress in a Musical

Sutton Foster, Violet

Marin Mazzie, Bullets Over Broadway

Idina Menzel, If/Then

Jessie Mueller, Beautiful

Kelli O'Hara, The Bridges of Madison County

Idina Menzel

The Nominees: Like the Oscars, the Tony Awards have their frequent favorites, and two of them happen to be Sutton Foster and Kelli O'Hara, who rarely miss (O'Hara is in the hunt for her first Tony win, whereas Foster already has two).  It seems unthinkable that Idina Menzel would miss on her big, splashy return to Broadway, even if her show doesn't seem quite there for a nomination for the big prize (then again, this is the Tony Awards...this category is probably the "big prize").  Jessie Mueller is on a roll lately in a similar way to last year's winner Patina Miller (everything she touches turns to gold), and I couldn't be happier for her (she was the best thing about Mystery of Edwin Drood, and as I mentioned above, that's a play filled with best things).  The final nomination I'm going with Marin Mazzie, another Tony nominee-but-not-winner favorite (three nominations in this case, so Kelli doesn't have to start sweating yet), as reprising the role that won Dianne Wiest the Oscar surely has to count for something.  If the Tony Awards try to go big and movie-star like, Michelle Williams tepid performance in Cabaret could be the stunner, but they've avoided stars in poorly-reviewed vehicles before (Julia Roberts, anyone?), so I think the five Broadway divas will be sufficient.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Easily my favorite category of the night, so I will cheat and say all of them.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Who are you rooting for on the 29th?  Should I pull the plug and do my NYC trip and give in to temptation?  Share in the comments!

OVP: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Film: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Stars: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Evangeline Lilly, Aidan Turner, Orlando Bloom, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Benedict Cumberbatch
Director: Peter Jackson
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Visual Effects, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

As you may recall, I loved the first installment of The Hobbit series, and I'm not really up for apologizing for that, because you're wrong and not me (he said, knowing he was coming across as a jerk).  Just because a film doesn't happen to equal its predecessor doesn't make it terrible (...though I may need to re-think The Godfather Part III after writing that sentence).  The first film tackled a different tone, and while we can debate to the end of time if this trilogy is necessary, its quality in my opinion is cemented.

This is particularly true of this installment, which I thought improved upon the earlier entry in almost every direction.  Tonally, it falls deeper into the world of Jackson's previous trilogy, but it maintains the slight sense of playfulness and innocence that The Hobbit espoused so well.

The film also takes some serious detours, and one has to wonder how much Peter Jackson has been watching Game of Thrones, as you can feel the George R.R. Martin show somewhat permeating this movie.  The edits are swifter, the visual effects smoother, and the focus on character development and story in place of larger action set-pieces works wonderfully.  The film was always at a disadvantage being from a slight source material, but Jackson bravely does what few other directors would dare to do-take a beloved piece of literature and truly bends and molds it to fit the screen.

(Spoilers Ahead) This decision will almost assuredly upset Tolkien fanboys (I have a father who is included in that club, and I am eagerly anticipating his reaction to these changes, which I'm guessing he won't be a fan of but will probably acknowledge as necessary).  I know a lot of Middle Earth die-hards are upset that Jackson messed with the formula, but this is something we should hope for, because the film is a much better movie as a result of these changes.  I spoke with a friend about the film earlier today, and I said that I was enjoying the slow ride into darker territory in the film, and he protested (accurately) that The Hobbit is supposed to be a children's book.  This is correct, of course, and the book itself stands apart as a well-considered piece of literature for young adults (I was ten or eleven when I first read it), but that doesn't mean the movie has to do so.  The film maintains the basic plot structure of the novel, but then fills it with rich goodies and character development and side stories that deliciously meld both worlds of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

My favorite moments in the film come from this combining of the worlds.  I loved the scene about halfway through the film (maybe a little bit more-I genuinely lost track of time) when Gandalf (McKellen, but you knew that) is wandering through what is clearly a busted, stone castle soaked in dark magic.  I remember reading an article once that said a bad sequel never hurts the first movie, but points out its weaknesses.  In this case, a good sequel can point out the greatness of the original film, and you see that here; The Lord of the Rings is at its best when it is showing the cataclysms of evil and the impending need for good.  So many films show good over evil, but few films take the time to show the allure, the mystique, the dominance of evil.  The richer the villain, the better the story, and while Gollum quickly assumed the mantle of the best villain in the original trilogy, this film sheds light on Sauron and his relentless campaign to destroy all life.

The film also has time for a love triangle.  Inventing Tauriel (Lilly) to carry the story surely was the boldest move Jackson made, and in this reviewer's opinion, was a home run decision.  I've always had a soft spot for anyone who filled up my many hours of Lost obsession (still my favorite entertainment venture in any medium, and yes that includes all film and literature, and no, I don't care if you call me a fanboy-Lost forever!), and all the barbs you throw at my Kate Austen only makes us both stronger.  Lilly reaches for a noble playfulness that Liv Tyler could never quite muster as Arwen (though they are admittedly of a different personality), and it makes sense that she sets her eyes on the sexiest dwarf Kili (to paraphrase Mrs. Bennet, "oh Aidan Turner, I knew you could not be so beautiful for nothing!").  This incenses her other paramour Legolas (Orlando Bloom, probably the only disappointment in the film considering how much of a breath of fresh air he was in the original films-ten years of overacting and bad filmic decisions have proven the "if you rest, you rust" adage apt here), but not enough to steal away from the mission at-hand.

Honestly, as I'm writing I keep remembering more and more excellent scenes.  The entire Smaug sequence is wicked good fun-Martin Freeman has found a stronger balance with Bilbo (perhaps the Ring is a solid counterweight to his apprehension) and Benedict Cumberbatch's vocal work is stupendous as the sweeping, massive Smaug.  Were it not for the juggernaut that Gravity is, I genuinely think Smaug would have grabbed The Hobbit the trilogy's first Oscar win based on the dragon alone.  While the film won't compete in Makeup (that branch is so strange), Dan Hennah being snubbed for the best work he's done in the series since Fellowship would be a travesty-the floating city of Esgaroth, Dol Goldur, and the burial site of the Nazgul genuinely erupted an audible "wow" from me, and I wasn't the only one in the theater stating it.  Critics frequently complain when crew members get cited multiple times for the same film series, but I can honestly say that Hennah more than earns a citation for this entry-there's an abundance of fanciful, eye-popping work here and AMPAS would be fools of a Took for not remembering him now.

The ending of the film, more than even The Two Towers (still my favorite entry in the series), leaves us breathlessly hanging for the next moment, and the "you can't end it there" aspect is maybe too much even for a film guaranteed a sequel (though anyone who complains about it and doesn't hate Catching Fire is a hypocrite).  Jackson's decision to stretch the story into a trilogy has been questioned by almost everyone (including yours truly), but like I said in the last review, the problems of filling the final film rest with that work, not this one.  Desolation of Smaug can rest on its laurels like a dragon on gold, knowing that it has accomplished what most thought impossible: a true return to Middle Earth, an expansion of Jackson's tale without sacrificing quality or story, and earns its place as a truly worthy successor of that first feeling in the water.

OVP: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Film: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Stars: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, Sylvester McCoy
Director: Peter Jackson
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Art Direction, Visual Effects, Makeup)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

As reviewers, we cannot entirely shield ourselves from our personal favorites,  As I mentioned a few weeks ago when I reviewed Breaking Dawn, I am a biased fan of the Twilight films, and that may have skewed me a bit.  However, I can say that, though The Lord of the Rings as a 10-hour epic may be my favorite movie (depending on what day you ask me), I was looking forward to The Hobbit with a bit of dread.  The trailers (the few I had seen) had me a bit nervous-lighter tone is not a direction I care to venture, and unlike the original trilogy, I had read The Hobbit as a kid of about thirteen, and so I knew there wasn't a lot to go on in the film, and to stretch it over three films for nearly ten hours seemed a bit daring, and possibly (well, certainly) a bit greed-induced, potentially at the cost of artistic credence.  Images of The Phantom Menace danced in my head, and they had me shivering with cinematic fear.

I will now admit, however, that I was thankfully and mercifully wrong, as I adored the movie.  It's not the same film as The Lord of the Rings, but that's not necessarily due to a lack of quality, but due to the aforementioned change in tone.  The film is dealing with a slightly less noble pursuit.  I'm going to try desperately throughout this review not to compare it to the book (partially because it's been a few years since I was thirteen and it's a little fuzzy at this point), as I'm usually a solid fan of changing the plot of a book in order to fit it onto the big screen, and one of the best examples of that is the change in the pursuit of the dwarves.  In the book, if I recall correctly, they are simply after the mountain of treasure that Smaug is guarding, rather than the noble pursuit of reclaiming their kingdom.  Here, that makes their quest a bit easier to buy into, and gives the film some depth that is well-needed.

Even with that plot alteration, it can't quite hit the "end-of-the-world" heaviness that, say, The Return of the King manages to encompass since there they are fighting a true, complete evil that is set to destroy all of Middle Earth, and so the film cannot quite hit those depths.  It certainly doesn't lose its majesty, however.  The film knows how to highlight the natural beauty it perfected in The Lord of the Rings-every single landscape seems to have been plucked from Tolkien's imagination, so perfectly crafted it is (the art direction is sublime in the film, particularly when you note, say Radagast's house and all of its fun little nuances or the agedness of Bilbo's hobbit hole).

Speaking of Radagast, the film also manages to fill in some of the thinness in its plot with clever and delightful diversions such as Radagast and his crazy affinity for mushrooms and hedgehogs.  Some critics may be divided on this (I honestly haven't spent a lot of time reading reviews of the film, though I've heard they are a bit sour on it), but I must confess that I love every single hint and clue that comes up regarding the soon-to-come Lord of the Rings tale.  Radagast seeing Sauron, the Necromancer, and the already shaky allegiance of Saruman to the side of good.  Prequels aren't usually fun because they make everything fit too neatly, but with a story as well-definied as Tolkien's, this works well for Jackson and his co-writers.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the plot of the film aside from picking and choosing what I loved, and that's because you're going to see this movie-it's one of those bulletproof sort of films that anyone who is remotely interested in the film is going to head out and see it, and they should-this movie is excellent popcorn fare.  I'm also not going to focus on the entire plot, because this is a long, long movie-coming in just shy of three hours (though it breezes by), there's tons of plot and sideplot to push a review into a novella, and I'm about to start my Christmas travels, so I don't have time to finish a Cliffs Notes version of The Hobbit.

I will, however, note on some of the best and worst parts of the film.  The best parts, almost certainly, hearken back to the first film, and perhaps that's the nostalgia at work.  Every actor seems like they have missed these characters and the grandeur they bring, and so you suddenly see Cate Blanchett or Ian McKellen (every bit as fun as you remembered him in the first film, without quite the confidence he possessed in those movies) or Ian Holm, and your heart swells with pride over what a fun time you once had with them, and are now are about to have with them again.  The film's newer characters (save a heavy-hearted Richard Armitage and a dottering Sylvester McCoy) aren't quite as well defined as they should be, and haven't had the time in our hearts that the older characters have, and so I wasn't quite as drawn in by their plots and had a bit of a difficult time finding defining characteristics for each dwarf.  I will also gripe (just this once) that Aidan Turner, who plays Kili, may be a bit too...beautiful to be playing a dwarf.

I'm also warming to Bilbo, as incarnated by Martin Freeman, as my main protagonist, and I will say that I am closer to loving him than I ever was with Frodo (who sort of gets to be the Luke Skywalker of The Lord of the Rings-the main character, but constantly overshadowed by his more interesting and rootable-for sidekicks).  Though Freeman doesn't get the plum role that Ian Holm did (it's always better and more exciting to be turning evil onscreen than to be the jolly good predecessor), he still finds a voice as the film progresses.  I wish they would have found a bit more time to show his emerging strength (and more animosity with Thorin) so that the final moments where he saves Thorin's life would be a bit more of a payoff, but overall, I enjoyed Freeman's work, and am excited to see where this character goes in the next two films (personally, considering where they are in the plot of the book, I'm truly excited to see what happens in the third film period, as there's not a lot left of the novel if I recall correctly, and certainly not enough to fill two films, but that's a problem for another day and another movie).

Lastly, I want to end with what undoubtedly was everyone's favorite part of this film, the return of Gollum, and the glorious Andy Serkis.  The only disappointing thing about this moment was that it's the only interaction we're guaranteed between the two in this trilogy, and so I was so glad that Jackson gave it its proper due, rather than short-shifting Serkis or trying to string the character through multiple films (at least I'm hoping that's not where they're going with it).  You spend so much time getting to know the human side of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, it's a nice reminder to the audience what a menacingly evil character he also happens to be.  It takes a lot of directorial and acting skill to make a scene that everyone in the audience knows the ending to (Bilbo will escape with the ring, and both characters will live to see another day, though never to see each other again) thrilling and edge-of-your-seat, but that's what Jackson does here.  The riddle match, the stealing of the ring, and everything about this interaction brings out the best in the movie, and the best in Freeman as an actor.  Serkis's character may be relying on some past tricks, but he still manages to add new depths to a character-look at the glee he showers on Bilbo when he realizes that he'll get to play a game before the kill, and the unnerving way he doesn't address his multiple personalities, which of course he is not truly aware is odd.  It's a tour de force triumph at the end of the film, and worth the ticket price, even on top of an excellent adventure of a movie.

And that's where I'm going to leave it.  I'm positive there are opinions out there of the film, so feel free to share your favorite (or least favorite) parts in the comments.  And though I know I owe everyone a Glee recap (I have seen it, I just haven't written it), if I don't have the time to write it before the holiday, Merry Christmas!