OVP: Actor (2021)

OVP: Best Actor (2021)

The Nominees Were...

Javier Bardem, Being the Ricardos

Benedict Cumberbatch, The Power of the Dog

Andrew Garfield, tick, tick...BOOM!

Will Smith, King Richard

Denzel Washington, The Tragedy of Macbeth

My Thoughts: We have not yet gotten to an Oscars year where I didn't watch the actual ceremony live with the Oscar Viewing Project.  By the end of the year, that will not be the case; I started watching the Oscars in 1994/1995, and I've already finished watching a full OVP year from before then that we'll write about later this year, hopefully this summer at my current pace.  But as a result, it's sometimes impossible to separate the category from what I felt at the time, and when it's a category as infamous as this one, it's worth reminding people: we base who wins here solely on the performance at hand, not whether or not someone may have, say, ruined one of the most successful movie star careers of the past three decades with one simple slap.

We'll get Will Smith out of the way, and to this day I'm still not entirely sure what he was thinking.  But I do get what the Academy was thinking.  Smith is one of the last big movie stars of the 1990's (possibly the last) to not have a competitive Oscar who ended up getting one, and he's good here.  Richard Williams isn't a role that he'd be naturally the right choice for, but he does a strong job of combining the cool, assured persona that has made him a household name with against-type frustration on Williams' part as he tries to break down the barriers of the very segregated world of professional tennis.  Like his costar Aunjanue Ellis whom we talked about yesterday (links to all past contests at the bottom of the page), he is hurt by the screenwriters unwillingness to write Williams as a complicated, three-dimensional man rather than an always-right hero, and so it never feels like a complete performance, but he does well with what he has.

One could hardly say that Denzel Washington was handed a bad script, given that Joel Coen's adaptation of Macbeth is almost verbatim the original text from Shakespeare.  But he is aided in this version of the classic play by the cool, eerie ambience of this performance.  Even better for Washington are his scene partners (specifically Kathryn Hunter) who complement Washington's take on Macbeth quite well.  Washington plays the ill-guided king as a fool, but one who clearly has a confidence that is stripped by madness as the film goes.  It's a smart look at (honestly) the third most interesting character in a play despite him being the title character, and as a result, he outshines Frances McDormand, who has the better role.

Benedict Cumberbatch is a weird conundrum for me in that, before Power of the Dog, I'd never gravitated toward him.  I didn't like his oftentimes modernist takes on classic characters, and his screen persona was always a bit smarmy or (in his other Oscar-nominated film) scenery-chewing.  But this...this is fantastic.  His affected accent (not really western, clearly struggling behind his natural posh London accent) works really well for a character who is so much pretense, and he plays Phil as a dangerous character you can't help but stare at, and not just because Cumberbatch has never been so sexy onscreen.  There's a raw magnetism there, one that you can't deny as you're watching, and one that you're worried Smit-McPhee will fall into because, quite honestly, Cumberbatch is so good the audience is definitely headed that direction.

Andrew Garfield has been sexy (quite frequently) onscreen, but is looking more along the lines of "affably dorky" in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Tick Tick Boom.  Garfield's got a better script than his competitor Smith, in part because the script isn't shy about Jonathan Larson's faults as a self-involved genius, one incapable of the romance he wants to bring to his plays.  Garfield isn't a natural singer, but he holds his own, and puts so much assured personality into his vocals that what read as out-of-the-box casting before the film feels like inevitability when you're watching it onscreen.

Our final nominee is Javier Bardem, and for me, it's the one dud in an otherwise good lineup.  Bardem was also out-of-the-box casting in a film brimming with it, and he's the one actor that doesn't work.  His Desi Arnez isn't charming enough, doesn't have enough chemistry with Kidman's Lucille Ball, and his character spouting the type of hyper-expositional dialogue that Sorkin is drowning his actors in here is the one least-equipped to make it believable given Arnez is meant to be more opaque about his feelings.  Sometimes casting a star for a role they aren't a good fit for works (Cumberbatch, Garfield, & Smith all did it), but Bardem is proof not every casting director is infallible.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama went with Smith as the winner atop Bardem, Cumberbatch, Washington, & Mahershala Ali (Swan Song) while Musical/Comedy went to Garfield against Leonardo DiCaprio (Don't Look Up), Peter Dinklage (Cyrano), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza), & Anthony Ramos (In the Heights).  SAG went verbatim with Oscar's lineup (winner included), and BAFTA also picked Smith, though they went for a totally different Best Actor roster, with Cumberbatch, DiCaprio, Ali, Stephen Graham (Breaking Point), and Adeel Akhtar (Ali & Ava) the other nominees.  For sixth place, at the time I predicted Nicolas Cage for Pig (which, honestly, still feels plausible...precursors ain't everything), though if you wanted to think DiCaprio was in sixth you'd likely have more company than me on the Cage ledge.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Overall, Oscar did well here and there's a lot of overlap with my personal list which we'll get to in the next few days.  But for sure I'd want at least one of these guys out, and the easy answer of who to throw in would be Dev Patel, who is (for me) finally fulfilling the promise of a swaggering, handsome movie star with his electric performance in The Green Knight.

Oscar’s Choice: Had they voted during the ceremony, I think Garfield or Washington might've gotten the statue, but with all ballots delivered pre-slap, this was Smith in a walk.

My Choice: Cumberbatch, by a healthy margin...in my opinion the least of these actors given the rest of their collective body of work, this is proof that you have to just give it by the performances at hand, as he's marvelous here.  Garfield, Washington, Smith, & Bardem follow (in that order).

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you going to go with the default coronation of Smith or do you want to join me in crowning the unlikely Cumberbatch?  Do we think that anyone will win an Oscar for Shakespeare again?  And am I crazy for still thinking it was Cage who was in sixth (rather than the more traditional DiCaprio)?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2021: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2021

Past Best Actor Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OVP: The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)

Film: The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)

Stars: Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Cherry Jones, Vincent D'Onofrio, Fredric Lehne, Sam Jaeger

Director: Michael Showalter

Oscar History: 2 nominations/2 wins (Best Actress-Jessica Chastain*, Makeup & Hairstyling*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Fame is a strange beast, and it's also a weird conundrum when taken in conjunction with something that people are not typically famous for.  In modern society, we think of famous figures associated largely with their jobs-movie stars, politicians, athletes...these are the professions we are used to someone being famous for.  But during the 1970's & 80's, America's conservative moment allowed for a different type of celebrity: the televangelist.  It's hard to grasp today, but people like Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker were a BIG deal in the United States.  At the height of their fame, they had 20 million people tuning in for their show, and had a theme park that rivaled Disneyland in terms of annual visitors.  Their fall was big news, across every country in America, and they were well-known enough that they were played by Phil Hartman & Jan Hooks on Saturday Night Live.  Today, they aren't well-remembered...the scandal was part of that, but in the same way we don't have a great idea of what opera superstars or painting superstars are, the televangelist movement has been relegated to small potatoes in terms of celebrity cache, and so I was curious when I saw The Eyes of Tammy Faye-how would the movie get across the seismic impact they briefly had on American culture?  What I found was a film that got that message across, but in doing so glossed over huge swaths of their story to the detriment of the film at-large.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie follows the lives of Jim (Garfield) and Tammy Faye Bakker (Chastain) from their humble beginnings in rural Minnesota to their eventual movement to the televangelist circuit, becoming at one point the largest stars in its orbit (though as the film points out, never the largest power-brokers).  They both seem to have love at the center of their ministries, but while Jim is more out to prove himself & make a fortune for himself, Tammy Faye seems to struggle with the concept of anything other than love.  Yes, she sings & enjoys the fame, but she also genuinely cannot jive with some of the hate (particularly for AIDS patients and gay people) that people like Jerry Falwell (D'Onofrio) are intent on taking down as part of their movement.  When the Bakkers are found out for both financial scandal (they embezzled mountains of money that was pledged to projects for PTL, their network) and sex scandal (both Bakkers had affairs, Jim purportedly homosexual ones, though I'll be honest I feel like the screenwriters totally glossed over the rape allegations levied at Jim by Jessica Hahn), we see their fall from grace, divorce, & what it was like for Tammy Faye specifically in the years after when she went from one of the country's most recognizable figures to basically a joke.

The film itself is a conundrum, because it does address Tammy Faye herself really well.  Chastain is saddled with a particularly difficult part.  Tammy Faye as written (and based on all accounts, Tammy Faye in real life), was kind of the embodiment of a ridiculous person, but one so genuine you couldn't help but love her.  Chastain does that balance well-she makes sure that we understand that Tammy Faye isn't a fool, but she is someone who truly loves the people around her & wants the best for everyone.  In a cynical world, she is a woman of true, unadulterated faith in her fellow man (and her lord).  This can read as cloying, but Chastain pushes through that need & just makes her feel authentic.  It's a very good performance from an actress making something of a comeback in 2021.

The problem is that the rest of the film can't keep up this energy.  This is particularly an issue for Garfield's Jim.  Garfield is the right fit for a man at odds with his own sexuality & who is trying to prove himself on multiple fronts-he's the kind of actor who can let his inner-world spring forth, even when he doesn't want it to.  But the director doesn't know how to engage with Jim's sexuality (which is never properly confirmed even if it's all-but-alluded-to), and how the man himself deals with it.  And unlike Tammy Faye, we don't understand where the line between Jim's true faith & where he's pretending is drawn.  Combine the cartoonish villainy of Jerry Falwell (which I'll forgive to a degree since it's probably true-to-life for the hateful televangelist) and the bizarre handling of Ron Messner (who is a significant character in the film, yet the picture itself never talks about how he eventually marries Tammy Faye), and you have a movie that doesn't quite work, even if Chastain is doing her darndest to sell it.

OVP: Actor (2016)

OVP: Best Actor (2016)

The Nominees Were...

Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield, Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling, La La Land
Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic
Denzel Washington, Fences

My Thoughts: We move forward with the 2016 Oscars this week into Best Actor, a contest that was far more competitive at-the-time than it looks in hindsight, considering Casey Affleck ended up with the trophy that most assumed he'd win the day Manchester by the Sea came out.  Part of that had to do with Affleck's personal problems, but I also do think even in a normal year we would have seen two of these men start to pop in a way that we hadn't before in terms of "competitiveness."

One of those two guys is Denzel Washington.  Washington is a strange bird in that he regularly works in commercial fare, and yet is never punished for it when it comes to the Oscars.  Most actors (looking at you Tom Cruise, but Tom Hanks would also fit into this bill) who toe-the-line between commercial and artistic fare occasionally are snubbed for their returns to Oscar-bait films, perhaps to say "don't take it for granted you can always come back" but that's not the case for Washington, who always makes it back.  Even if he was being punished, it's hard to imagine that happening for Fences, where he brings a fire and fortitude to his Troy Maxson that makes you think it was almost written for him (and not a thirty-year old play).  There are moments where Washington should modulate his performance (remembering, perhaps, that he is not playing to a standing-room only audience at the Cort), but in the scenes where he's great (like "the daughter" scene), he's giving some of the best work of his career.

The other actor who conceivably could have dethroned Affleck is Ryan Gosling in La La Land.  People talk about how Leonardo DiCaprio was going to be the "next Paul Newman," frequently dismissed despite putting in killer work for years, but doesn't it feel like Gosling fits that fate more?  Gosling somehow can't even get nominated for his best work (Blue Valentine, Drive, First Man).  Gosling tries to capture the mood of La La Land, and in his acting he does that.  There's a sense of the mood that Chazelle was trying to accomplish there.  Unfortunately, in a movie that wants us to indulge in numerous flights-of-fancy, the singing isn't up-to-snuff, and as a result I never got into this the way that other people do, even though I give Gosling's work overall a thumbs up and love him as an actor in general.

Gosling & Washington both were obvious threats for the win, but that doesn't mean that Affleck wasn't deserving.  An actor of tics and nervous introversion (so different than the bravado confidence of his brother Ben), Affleck is perfectly cast in Manchester by the Sea as a man who cannot get past the grief of his family dying in a fire, even when he is given a new chance to be a savior for his young nephew.  The scenes with Michelle Williams late in the movie are my favorite part of the film, and of Affleck's performance, the inability of him to forgive himself showing in his face, because that would be to acknowledge that life could move on-it's a heartbreaking performance, fully-realized, and the best thing he's done in his career.

The last two nominees are more after-thoughts, though considering the lock-step aspects of this lineup through the precursors, they obviously had their champions.  Mortensen gets the more difficult part, as a mountain man who is raising a young family on the outskirts of society (a weird companion piece to Leave No Trace two years later, though this one has more room for levity).  His performance hinges on being able to convince the audience that he is doing the "right thing" by his family, even if that right thing comes with too much tunnel vision about what is also "right for him."  The movie itself I didn't love, but I don't put that as much on Mortensen's lead performance, which is interesting if occasionally not revealing enough about what he's feeling (which is crucial for the late scenes to achieve emotional payoff).  The actor who once adorned posters in the dorms of young men everywhere continues to pave perhaps the weirdest post-LOTR career with this movie, and considering it got him an Oscar nomination, perhaps the most fruitful?

Doesn't it feel like Andrew Garfield has been waiting for this Oscar nomination way longer than he actually has?  His citation for Hacksaw Ridge was yes, part of that film's stampede, but also a long road from when he nearly made it for The Social Network.  I have talked about how, while I didn't like Hacksaw Ridge, I didn't hate it like many online critics seemed to, and I think a lot of Garfield's best moments are from Gibson forcing a narrative on him, making his work elevate because Gibson is showing "this is important" in big bold letters through the editing, cinematography, and sound design.  The earlier scenes, the ones outside of an action lens & the ones Gibson just view as a means-to-an-end, are terrible, and Garfield doesn't know how to play this version of his Desmond Doss work.  This isn't Garfield's best work, but it is nice to know he finally got his overdue Oscar nomination if his career never fully realizes its initial promise.

Other Precursor Contenders: We start with the Globes, which distinguish between Drama and "Comedy/Musical," and as a result have ten men on our ballot.  The dramatic men included victorious Casey Affleck, besting Garfield, Mortensen, Washington, and Joel Edgerton in Fences; Comedy/Musical was an easy lift for Ryan Gosling, the only Oscar nominee of the bunch, against Colin Farrell (The Lobster), Hugh Grant (Florence Foster Jenkins), Jonah Hill (War Dogs...one of those Golden Globe-nominated films I have absolutely no memory of existing), and Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool).  SAG went with a carbon copy of Oscar, though they picked Denzel Washington for the win, likely at that point trying to give Oscar an out considering some of the #MeToo stories that were swirling about Affleck at the time.  BAFTA went to Affleck, and here it was Washington oddly enough snubbed (it is, at the end of the day a pretty American story, but Viola Davis won so I don't know what was happening here), and including Jake Gyllenhaal for Nocturnal Animals.  Sixth place in retrospect feels like a distant sixth, but at the time Mortensen's film, which was really under-seen felt vulnerable, either to Edgerton or Reynolds (there were a lot of people pulling for Deadpool at the last minute).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: First off, Garfield is nominated for the wrong movie.  I'm glad that we finally have an Oscar nomination for a very fine actor, but his superior work in 2016 was in Silence, not Hacksaw Ridge.  I would have also included Trevante Rhodes, for playing the third quarter of Moonlight so beautifully; that scene in the cafe alone warranted an Oscar nomination.  And honestly, I'd probably rely on two films that almost no one saw for my final two citations.  Adam Driver is always excellent these days, but his work in Paterson shouldn't be ignored-this sweet, kind, slightly strange movie is so effective because of his sensitive work.  Finally, I love what Logan Lerman did in Indignation.  I know he kind of got Bryce Dallas Howard/Jessica Chastain'd by Timothee Chalamet in recent years, but he's a promising actor who has now had three truly great performances this decade (along with Perks of Being a Wallflower and Fury)-at what point do people start giving him acknowledgement?

Oscar’s Choice: I think this was pretty close between Affleck (who made the most sense on-paper), Washington (whom I believe I predicted at the time because there was a movement going against Affleck), and Gosling (whom I also thought might be a decent winner at the time considering he hadn't won yet and his winning someday feels inevitable), but it was Affleck's work that won.

My Choice: This is a first for me, and sadly not a last.  My winner is Casey Affleck, and for the purposes of this series (where we are focused solely on the performances at hand and not careers or makeup Oscars or the personal lives of the actors), he is the official winner.  However, if I had an actual real world ballot, I would have probably voted for my second place Denzel Washington considering the sexual harassment allegations against Affleck at the time.  But for this series, it's Affleck, Washington, Gosling, Mortensen, and Garfield, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you think that Washington or Gosling had a legit shot at besting Affleck here?  Do you think this is the end-of-the-line for Andrew Garfield (who has fallen into less-seen productions since Hacksaw Ridge), or will he sneak back for a second nomination?  And has anyone actually seen War Dogs-is it any good?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2016: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2016

Past Best Actor Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

OVP: Silence (2016)

Film: Silence (2016)
Stars: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Issey Ogata, Yosuke Kubozuka, Liam Neeson
Director: Martin Scorsese
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Martin Scorsese has had a long enough career that his filmography means many things to many people.  To most of his present-day fans, he is a filmmaker associated with mob movies, crime films with strong male leads like Robert de Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio.  GoodFellas, The Departed, The Wolf of Wall Street-films filled with machismo, winking dark comedy, and strong acting and editing.  For older film fans, he was the provocateur behind such groundbreaking works as Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, classics in every sense of the word.  But there is a third batch of under-sung cinema from Scorsese-those based so deeply in the world of faith.  This makes sense, particularly for a man who once aspired to become a priest, and Silence is the latest installment in Scorsese's grappling with his religious beliefs.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film, set during the 17th Century, follows two Spanish priests, Father Rodrigues (Garfield) and Father Garupe (Driver) as they set out on a mission into Japan, where Christianity will frequently be punished with death, in order to find their mentor Father Ferreira (Neeson).  The film follows them as they begin a very dangerous mission, meeting with Christians in hiding all across Japan, all afraid of being put to death for their beliefs or being forced to commit apostasy in order to survive.

The movie largely focuses on two aspects of this story, one where we see a relatively routine set of circumstances executed over-and-over (the priests making some progress in pushing Christianity, then to be forced to test their faith and likely die in the process), with Garupe and Rodrigues (later just Rodrigues as Garupe drowns trying to save someone being killed as a test of faith against him), serving as witnesses, until Rodrigues finally meets Father Ferreira, who has assimilated to the culture of Japan, and is convinced that he must apostatize as it's the only way to end the heinous violence in Japan, and that Christianity cannot take hold on the island.  This is a compelling story, one that has a number of interesting characters, including a Toshiro Mifune-like figure in Kichijiro (Kubozuka), frequently finding himself at odds with his alcoholism, weak spine, but devout (if perhaps less-than-pious) faith.  I liked the way that it always felt like we were at the edges of danger until we sort of plunge into the "heart of darkness" (it's impossible not to feel the weight of Apocalypse Now! on the movie) aspects of the film.

More compelling still, though, is the way that Scorsese doesn't shy away from very heavy-handed questions of faith and humanity.  While the repetitive story is happening, we see a contrast in our central protagonist of Rodrigues, who is continually struggling with his devout nature.  The movie ends with him sticking to Christianity, as he is holding a cross as he's cremated, but we also see him wonder what sacrifices god is expecting of man.  The question of Christ, for example, is frequently ascertained but Christ is a god, while Rodrigues a mere mortal man-can he be expected to fulfill the same sort of sacrifice without doubt?  It's a fascinating set of questions posed by Scorsese, ones that he can't answer (really, truly, no one can), but ones that he poses in a complex and fascinating way.  This is a film that will have you reexamining and recalling for weeks after viewing.

Silence is not an easy film to love-this isn't a film like Carol or Gravity that needs to be seen many times over because you love it so much, but it's a challenging and remarkable masterpiece.  It's staggering to me that at such a late stage in his career Scorsese is still surprising us with a movie like this, breeding together Coppola and Bergman and a touch of Malick for a provocative film, arguably the most complicated movie I saw in 2016.  I would encourage anyone who likes him or doesn't to check it out-you might not like it (and it's a long sit), but it feels like the sort of movie that becomes essential because it's too good not to be.

OVP: Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Film: Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Stars: Andrew Garfield, Vince Vaughn, Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Hugo Weaving
Director: Mel Gibson
Oscar History: 6 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Andrew Garfield, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing*, Film Editing*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

It's hard to remember now, but at one point Mel Gibson was a very big movie star.  Long before his drunken, anti-semitic rants, before his ultra-right political and religious views came out, and his bizarre divorce (after being one of the most devoted family men in Hollywood) followed by increasingly erratic romantic behavior, Mel Gibson was one of the best action stars in Hollywood.  Impossibly handsome (bordering on the beautiful back in the 1980's), funny, charming, and suave onscreen, he might not have always been the best actor, but he crossed that line into being a truly great movie star, one of those few people who could open any film and even make the bad ones enjoyable because they were watching Mel Gibson onscreen.  I couldn't help but think of this fact as I sat through the frustrating, occasionally intriguing but usually terrible Hacksaw Ridge.

(Spoilers Ahead...though it's real life so, you know, read a book) The film is the story of Desmond Doss (Garfield), the first man in American history to receive the Medal of Honor and be a conscientious objector, winning it for actions he took during the Battle of Okinawa.  Doss's story is one for the ages, and it seems kind of unthinkable that no one had made this into a movie before.  The film follows him from his early days in Virginia to eventually fighting in Japan, but as he was a Seventh-Day Adventist with deeply-held beliefs, he refuses to kill a man in war or to even hold a weapon.  As a result, he is ostracized by his fellow soldiers until his grit and devotion wear them down and he proves himself in battle, saving the lives of some 75 men who had been left for dead atop Hacksaw Ridge.

It's a riveting story, the kind tailor-made for the screen (one of those, it wouldn't be believable except it's true situations), and indeed as far back as Audie Murphy they've been trying to make this into a film, but somehow it was Gibson who eventually brought it forth.  The actual by-product of the movie never quite lives up to its promise, particularly since Gibson struggles in early scenes in establishing his characters, particularly Andrew Garfield, who plays Doss as, well, "simple" in early scenes that are excruciatingly bad.  This continues as Gibson, likely without his A-list recruiting talents, is stuck with relatively banal actors like Sam Worthington and the terrible Vince Vaughan (seriously-when he is not filled with bombast?).  All-in-all, though, Gibson is saved by that movie star mentality.

What makes conservative filmmakers like Gibson and Clint Eastwood such fine filmmakers even when they're gearing toward politics that don't always jive with the audience or what we expect out of Hollywood, is that they frame their films in ways that are structured for classic movie stars.  Being movie stars themselves, they end up frequently making movies that center so well around a central performance that it's hard not to cheer for the protagonist, which isn't as easy as it sounds.  We all are meant to like the good guy, but actually cheering for them takes some emotional investment, and Gibson and Eastwood both do that rather well.  Their films occasionally lack the nuance that would make them exceptional (Gibson, for example, seems to revel in the violence a little too much behind the lens to properly give Doss's religious and pacifist views a chance), but they know how to structure their movies well so that a central performance can come through.  In the end, you find yourself rooting for Doss even if you thought him ludicrous at the beginning of the picture.  Gibson smartly gives side characters enough due that you recognize them as they are saved by Doss later in the film (and even winks at the way his posterior was exploited continuously in the 80's/90's by having Luke Pegler nude for much of the film), but never really pulls away from his central hero.  If Garfield gets an Oscar nomination (which I suspect he will, even if he doesn't really deserve it), he'll have Gibson's direction, so focused on making his arch work, to thank for him as Garfield's actorly instincts have always relied more heavily on that of a character performance than a leading man.  Mel Gibson may never make a truly great movie (unlike Clint, who has), but it's hard to deny that there are effective, action movie moments in this film that work splendidly, even if it's dreadful in other patches of the film enough so that I can't properly recommend this picture.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  I know that I'm still leery that Gibson is back (especially in the same year as Trump), but since he is-what do you think of this as a comeback vehicle?  Do you think he should get another property again, or was this too indulgent?  And what other movie stars made fine directors for, well, movie stars?  Share in the comments!

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Film: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary
Director: Marc Webb (I'm sure I'm the 1000th person to point it out, but what an appropriate last name!)
Oscar History: None
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I despise remakes.  There, I said it.  Maybe it's because I write for a blog that's primarily about having random conversations (or rantings!) about movies of every era, but I think all cinema, all art, is current.  You can easily discuss the works of Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Scorsese at any time, whether it's a movie from last week or a thousand year old tapestry.  That's the beauty of art-it can constantly be interpreted and appreciated and dissected.

That being said, I also love Oscar, and looking at the handsome production design and excellent Makeup work in this film, it seems destined to at least get one nomination come January, and despite what this blog may seem, I actually don't play catchup very often with the movies-usually I've seen 60-70% of the nominees come Oscar nomination morning, because I have carefully sought them out throughout the year.  And don't worry, if you're following the tags, I plan on having an extensive "go-back-and-update" party for all of the films I've reviewed and got nominated.

But enough about my OCD-ness when it comes to labels.  Let's get into the Amazing Spider-Bum...err man (though really, could the spandex have been any more snug on Andrew Garfield?  Not that I'm complaining, quite the contrary, but hot damn!).  The problem with the constant swinging door on comic book properties is that you always have to watch the same damn origin story, and they're nearly all identical.  At some point, Superman, Spider-Man, and Batman are all orphaned, and then they find some reason (usually related to the death of a loved one) to become anonymous superheroes.  And the first film always focuses on one love interest, followed by learning about your powers, and then finally saving the city (if not New York, always modeled on my beloved NYC) from certain doom.  It's hyper-cliche, and for those of you that are older than, say, 23, you saw this a decade ago with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.

But there's always some way to improve, and while I think Maguire is a serviceable actor (can't wait for Gatsby!) and love Dunst (rent Melancholia, immediately!), the improvement here is clearly the sexy and charming Garfield and Stone.  Seriously-Garfield has a wonderful knack for playing an awkward but incredibly handsome and witty nerd, and Stone is just pure bliss-seriously, when was the last time someone who could have such terrific chemistry with everyone she meets (Ryan Gosling, Andrew Garfield, Viola Davis, and Patricia Clarkson are all excellent actors, but very different approaches, and she works well with all of them) but also has talent and brains and beauty came to the screen?  Seriously, the young Diane Keaton comparisons seem a little premature, but you know she could get there.  You cheer every time they come onto screen, and sort of wish this were more of a romantic comedy than a superhero film, as I suspect that they would fit well in an Adam's Rib sort of situation if given the chance (though, for god's sake, we don't need a remake of that too!).  I also enjoyed the small roles played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, who also have chemistry and are believable as a longtime married couple, and it made me even more excited that Field will be starring in Lincoln later in the year, as it's about time for a resurgence of the underrated actress.

The film's best technical aspects, aside from Garfield's suit and all that comes with it, have to be some superbly constructed makeup (done by Tricia Sawyer, who has worked on the Hunger Games and Pirates of the Caribbean films), and the absolutely wonderful crane sequence (you'll know it when you see it), which I found an incredibly beautiful camera shot.  All-in-all, a handsome if unnecessary film that will surely spark some intriguing sequels.  As long as Stone and Garfield stick around, I likely will as well.

What about you-do you think that constant reinventions are a good thing for comic books or that they should invest in the many other properties available to Marvel and DC?  Do you find Stone and Garfield as magnetic onscreen as I do?  And for those of you who (like me) are comic book nerds, whom do you hope will be the next villain in the series?