'71 (2015)

Film: '71 (2015)
Stars: Jack O'Connell, Richard Dormer, Jack Lowden, Charlie Murphy, David Wilmot, Sean Harris
Director: Yann Demange
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

One of the hardest aspects of foreign films, regardless of whether or not there is a language barrier, is the context.  I frequently find this is true in exporting American cinema, where films that are mammoth hits here like The Help don't translate as well overseas due to the film's history not being as accessible to your common viewer as it is to someone from that country.  I kept thinking this thought when I was watching '71, a film set during the height of The Troubles, a turbulent time in Irish history, and how I was trying to deduce what parts I was confused because of my lack of knowledge and what parts were being thrown asunder through the film's minimalist character development.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Gary Hook (O'Connell) as he is drawn into first the world of the military and then into a random chase across the streets of Belfast, where alliances are continuously shifting.  The film is very well-paced, which is absolutely its best attribute.  The film doesn't go for many big moments, so when they happen (particularly a chilling and unexpected death scene about halfway through the movie, as well as the climactic moments when Hook is found by everyone who has been chasing him) they pay off.  The movie has so many characters that it's a bit hard to follow and feels more like something that you'd see on a lower-grade cable network (gritty, lots of talking between seemingly non-descript character actors) than an actual film, and in service to the characters you feel like the movie should have trimmed some fat in that regard, but you never quite feel that way while watching the movie, just after when you're trying to remember who was loyal to whom.

The film's history is probably part of this lack of character development.  I frequently talk about how books should never have to be read to see a film, and I feel a similar way with history (though one man's common knowledge is another's new discovery, so this is a slippery slope).  All-in-all, though, this movie probably needed a bit more of a spelling out as to exactly why these alliances kept shifting-we get that everyone is corrupt, but since no one seems to have a name that stands out and so many people are just surface-level characters, it's hard to connect with the actual plot that's being thrown at us.  Again, the pacing fixes most of this so there's no confusion over whether this is a bad movie (it isn't, though I don't know if it's really a good one either), but the editors can only do so much and without stronger stand-out work from the supporting characters we get a bit lost in who is backstabbing whom.

The film also does not do enough with Jack O'Connell in the central role.  O'Connell, now an actor I've seen in a couple things, is still not connecting with me as other than a moody young James Franco (at best)-he's weirdly attractive (more so than his very angular face should allow), and he was charming in the comic moments of Unbroken, but sullen is not a color worn well on him, and he frequently relies on too minimalist of instincts.  He's not bad, per se, but he's not great and I am starting to have my worries about his rising star.  Particularly in the late parts of the film, where he has to jump into being a war-torn broken man (yelling and screaming at random people), this feels very inauthentic and doesn't jive with his character work earlier in the movie.  His Gary remains unknowable, and considering he's in 80% of the film and us relating to the character is crucial to the film's devices, this is a pretty solid miss.

Those are my thoughts on this movie, one of the few films in theaters right now that I'm genuinely excited about-what are yours?  If you haven't seen it, chime in on your thoughts on Jack O'Connell, who seems destined to be a star in the next few years regardless of what we think.

OVP: Unbroken (2014)

Film: Unbroken (2014)
Stars: Jack O'Connell, Dohnall Gleeson, Miyavi, Garrett Hedlund, Finn Wittrock
Director: Angelina Jolie
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Arguably the most shocking downfall of this past Oscar season was the fall of Angelina Jolie's Unbroken.  Every year there's at least one film that manages to be drowned by its own expectations, faltering because people expect it to be a natural Best Picture frontrunner.  In the defense of pundits, a World War II epic based on a critically-acclaimed biography directed by an Oscar winner and lensed by one of the most acclaimed cinematographers of all-time...well, it's the sort of stuff that the Oscars salivate over.  And yet, I agree with the critical consensus here-Jolie may know how to create all of the right elements, but Unbroken lacks passion and nuance enough to make it an interesting picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The story of Louie Zamperini, a World War II veteran and Olympic runner, was destined for the screen.  By all accounts Zamperini was a truly extraordinary human being-overcoming bullying in school to become an Olympic athlete (who, according to some reports, was ballsy enough to steal Hitler's personal flag from him in 1936) and then became an incredible hero in World War II, followed by a long career as a Christian inspirational speaker.  His story feels like it was lived by three different people, and his biography, particularly his compelling overcoming the odds in Berlin and later in Japan, is the stuff that biopic-fans salivate over.

The problem for Jolie, of course, is that it's difficult to frame Zamperini in an actual film setting without making him larger-than-life, because quite-frankly he was.  This was a person who doesn't appear believable and would be mocked at by critics if he weren't non-fiction, as he seems too good to be true.  The character in the film, it should be stated, may well have been what Zamperini was (he genuinely seems like an extraordinary human being), but the film itself doesn't know how to find angles to sort of test his endurance.  Perhaps this is a situation where a plot on paper doesn't work in actuality-Zamperini doesn't have the shades of grey as a protagonist that would make for a more compelling film.  Instead, his story may be better suited for a biographical documentary, where you can stagger his story a bit more ferociously and have less need for cohesiveness.

This isn't the only problem that Jolie runs into with her film, though.  For starters, while the film is immaculately shot with beautiful aerial views (it's Roger Deakins behind that camera, y'all), the actual cast may be a bit too, well, pretty to be believable as a unit.  Unless Tom Ford had a hand in casting World War II, it's ridiculous to watch, with gorgeous Finn Wittrock, Jack O'Connell, Luke Treadaway, Jai Courtney, and Garrett Hedlund all somehow ending in the same orbit.  I know that an army uniform helps pretty much any guy in this regard, but this is ridiculous.  Additionally, aside from the scenes on the raft, they manage to stay gorgeous throughout the film.  Somehow in a war camp where they are deprived of human dignity and hope, they still have regular access to hair gel.

The performances are all over the board.  Jack O'Connell clearly has a magnetism that's going to serve him well in future roles, but I have to admit that he was just okay here-he doesn't know how to crescendo his performance, as his big moments end up appearing less big and more out-of-character.  Not to criticize Jolie too much, but I feel like he needed more direction here and to be pushed a little harder.  Garrett Hedlund is always wonderful, but we know next to nothing about his Fitzgerald (the same can be said for Domhnall Gleeson's Phil and Finn Wittrock's Mac, both strong actors who are given roles that don't demand much and they don't push them enough to be very memorable).  Miyavi, playing the "Bird," a famed prison guard, gets the plummest of roles but thoroughly disappoints.  He doesn't find any sort of internal aspects of the character-we're left with him being awful, but little indication of what sets him off in Louie, or why he is such a sadist.  I normally blame the screenplay in these situations, but I have to admit that the script is there, but Miyavi holds back, perhaps because he's more a practiced singer than an actor, and as a result this aspect, crucial to the film's success, left me completely cold.  This result is the ending being less capable than it could have been; when you don't ever think that Louie won't succeed, you don't really have any uplift when he does.

The combination of an unbelievable main character and an underwhelming villain make this film pretty much the disappointment it's described as, though I will say they chose correctly on the nominations.  Particularly with the Sound Editing, there's a ferocious crispness to the air scenes that make them easily the best aspect of the film (the way that dialogue is still audible but feels drowned-that's strong sound mixing in this critic's opinion).  And of course Roger Deakins is superb, though I will say that there were sequences of the movie where it felt like he was just leading up to the next terrific shot (the scenes in the camp, for example, where he isn't showing the same care that Lubezki did with Birdman or Dick Pope does with Mr. Turner).

Those are my thoughts on this film-how about yours?  Were you with myself (and critical consensus) or were you a closet cheerleader for this film?  Where do you see Jolie taking her career as a director and O'Connell taking his career as an actor?  And what are your thoughts on the nominations that the film did pull (should it win any of them)?  Share in the comments!

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Actor

As proof that these articles are a bit silly to be writing right now, as I pointed out in my Best Actress article, these are all just a snapshot, since clearly after the raves The Theory of Everything Felicity Jones got at Toronto she’ll likely go lead and might even win the entire thing.

Still, though, it’s a fun bit of silliness and I hate starting things I don’t complete (the 2013 OVP is starting up again this week, I promise), so we’ll continue on with Best Actor.  This category always feels ridiculously full, and once again that’s the case with a number of actors taking on many challenging roles, though I must admit that even here I feel a tad underwhelmed.  I genuinely get bored with AMPAS’s bizarre and constant love of biopics.  The reality is that while these are occasionally brilliant (Zodiac, A Social Network, basically the David Fincher ones), by-and-large they are boring because they stick to well-known and predictable narratives and while they occasionally have superb acting, they rarely delve into tangents and interesting ways of telling a story.

Still, though, this is about Oscar’s opinions and not mine, and Oscar loves him a biopic, which should surely help the handsome and affable Eddie Redmayne make his way into the Academy’s good graces.  The Theory of Everything got an outstanding response in Toronto and though he is pretty young by this category’s standards, I still think we should count on his name amongst the nominees.

Ditto Steve Carell, playing against type in Foxcatcher.  The constant delays for this film makes me raise an eyebrow, but Bennett Miller got lead nominations for both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Brad Pitt-I doubt that this will be any different.  The real question continues to be whether or not Channing Tatum correctly campaigns here or if he is demoted to a supporting performance ala Julia Roberts last year.  I’m guessing supporting for now, so that gets us to two.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s The Imitation Game has a little bit of a smell around it right now in my opinion, though I am basing that on nothing other than the trailer, which gave away the entire movie (that always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me a bit nervous about the movie).  Still, this is Harvey’s big player this year, and it’s hard to imagine Cumberbatch, who is at “that moment” in his career, going much longer without Oscar attention, especially for something so BAIT-y.

Continuing the oddly first-timer heavy aspect of this category (really, there’s a decent chance that all five of the nominees in this category will be first-time nominees, which would be the first time this has happened in Best Actor since 1934) we have Michael Keaton, back from the career abyss with a show-stopping role in Birdman.  Hats off to Keaton for playing a very meta character (a washed-up actor most famous for playing a superhero…sound familiar?), and I think that if this delivers Keaton could be in a position very similar to Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler a few years ago.

There are a number of former winners/nominees, of course, that could continue that 1934 streak.  Bill Murray is getting strong recognition for St. Vincent, and is clearly pushing for a nomination for that role.  You’ve got Tommy Lee Jones in yet another passion project for The Homesman (hey, it worked with In the Valley of Elah) and Matthew McConaughey could have an afterglow for Interstellar, though with True Detective already out doesn’t it feel like he’s been rewarded enough?  Brad Pitt is back once again with Fury and that certainly looks captivating, though Pitt’s so good so often these days I wonder if the Academy will continue to recognize this.  And there’s of course Joaquin Phoenix, who gets put in Oscar’s good graces as often as he’s ignored, but Inherent Vice has a solid aura surrounding it.

That being said, I think we’re looking at a first-timer at this point for the fifth slot.  Jack O’Connell is the lead of one of the year’s biggest pictures (Unbroken), but is probably too young at 24 and way too hot to be nominated in a category that likes their nominees middle-aged and sexless.  Timothy Spall is leading a Mike Leigh film which is occasionally good for an acting citation (though Leigh's more consistent for writing, where he's almost certain to be nominated again this year).  Therefore, my gut is telling me that this is going to go to David Oyelowo at this point.  His star is on the rise after The Butler, and Selma has that sort of feel of a film that is going to land a huge number of nominations.

My Predictions: I’ve kind of already gone there (Cumberbatch, Oyelowo, Carell, Keaton, and Redmayne).  If I had to name some names that I think are being underestimated, we’ve got Gael Garcia Bernal (Jon Stewart is going to campaign the hell out his Rosewater and everyone likes Stewart), Spall (whom I already listed but bears repeating: he did win Cannes, after all), and perhaps Oscar Isaac who is a major emerging talent but may be picking too Indy of films with Inside Llewyn Davis last year and A Most Violent Year this year (which will help him in the long run with his career but will probably mean he’ll have to wait for a milquetoast biopic in a few years to compete with Oscar).

Is there a winner? Oddly, while his costar Jones is nearly the perfect age to win, Eddie Redmayne is almost certainly too young to win Best Actor with Oscar.  Instead, I’d suspect that he’ll settle for an “investment nomination” and he’ll applaud for either Keaton or Carell, both of whom are at the right point in their careers to pull off a Forest Whitaker-style win (winning on what will likely be your only nomination).  How bizarre would it be for Steve Carell to have an Emmy but no Oscar though?  Share your thoughts on this and this entire slate in the comments!