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

4 Mini Reviews

We conclude our review roundups today with four more more movies from 2018 that I'll be giving mini-reviews to for the sake of time as we put a finish on last year and roll into our 2019 projects.  We still have some more 2018 movies that I want to get into, but we'll be doing that via our traditional full reviews, with these last four films getting the one-paragraph treatment (tis the curse of not getting an Oscar nomination and landing on a day I was too busy to complete the review).  I've made these films wait long enough, though, so let's dive in to their discussion.

The Old Man & the Gun (dir. David Lowery)

This film works better if you assume that Robert Redford is, indeed, retiring from acting.  If you do, you get the sense of wistfulness for an actor who has dominated movie screens for decades.  Redford's kind, handsome face and voice resonate with the audience even as he treads on familiar beats.  It's an odd story, the kind I'm surprised Clint Eastwood hadn't gotten his hands on (about a bank robber whom tellers genuinely like and has been robbing banks nearly all of his life).  Being based on real life, there are less twists than you'd hope for/expect, and the back-half where you 100% want him to get away with it but know he can't if this movie ever got made, is a bit of a drag, but Spacek & Redford have good chemistry, and with the knowledge that Redford won't make any more movies, there's enough nostalgia there to give you a good experience. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Ant-Man and the Wasp (dir. Peyton Reed)

It must have sucked having to follow something as emotionally-draining as Avengers 3, but Ant-Man in theory works better as a standalone comic film, thanks in large part to the compelling main antics of Paul Rudd, our unlikely hero.  The film doesn't have the same level of panache and focus, unfortunately, that the first film had (which is my second favorite of all of the Marvel Universe films after Winter Soldier), getting too bogged down in the Ghost villainy, which goes nowhere, and perhaps not realizing that the movie doesn't really need a villain since bringing back Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), is more than enough plot.  Still, Michael Douglas's work here is continually great and I love the chemistry between Rudd & Lilly.  I just wish the film had trimmed about thirty minutes off of its runtime, avoiding expanding in too many directions. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Colette (dir. Wash Westmoreland)

Keira Knightley's post-Pirates career has perhaps been one of the best I've ever seen out of an actress that could've so easily just been "the love interest" in a pair of 2003 movies.  An adventurous artist, I can think of no better person to play the charming, provocative Colette in the early stages of her career when she was writing the Claudine books under her husband's name.  Unfortunately the movie never really captures the bite that Knightley seems raring to give to this character, with the thick plot feeling thinly handled by Westmoreland, trying to fit traditional story beats into the life of an untraditional woman.  Still, Knightley remains an actress I'm obsessed with, and will follow her pretty much anywhere. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

A Bag of Marbles (dir. Christian Duguay)

A tiny little film that probably escaped mention with most people last year, I was intrigued by the film trailer of two young boys forced to flee the Nazis during World War II on foot, abandoned by their parents in hopes that they'd someday get to reunite.  The movie is based on a true story, an extraordinary one that became a bestselling memoir in the early 1970's, and there are moments that live up to the potential I saw in the trailer.  The cinematography is terrific, and I loved some of the side touches, particularly the brief interlude in the middle of the film when they're in Southern France, getting a respite from the war.  However, the movie never captures the startling fear of the real-life journey, and the child actors responsible for the main characters feel adrift in the movie's direction.  (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

OVP: Supporting Actor (2007)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2007)

The Nominees Were...

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

My Thoughts: As we've learned throughout our 2007 dissection, film really had a remarkable year in terms of the Oscars, as AMPAS dismissed some obvious prestige plays and went with a series of dark, powerful films.  And yet, the real shocker may be that looking at the Best Supporting Actor lineup they didn't somehow screw this lineup up.  Even in the best of years, the Best Supporting Actor list is almost always filled with duds.  Respected character actors, semi-lead performances, and scene stealers in Best Pictures are the standard line in this category, and again in 2007 they stick to these cliches, but in a surprise most of these performances are not dull, but instead are quite exceptional and career bests in a couple of cases.  So, given that refreshing bit of prelude, let's start with the worst of these performances.

I was never a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting style in movies.  People loved his deeply method approach, the way that he managed to be a movie star that looked like a character actor (a trick not many people get the opportunity to portray, but Paul Thomas Anderson and Bennett Miller saw to his having it), but I always felt his performances were too harried and theatrical.  In fact, the most impressive moment I ever saw from in his career was when he played Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, a towering achievement and one of the best performances I've ever seen on the New York stage.  But that was the theater, where he could get away with some of his more indulgent acting tics.  As a result other than The Master I've never been particularly struck by anything Hoffman did as a film actor, and that includes Charlie Wilson's War.  Here he plays a bombastic CIA operative, whose only temperatures are loud and louder when it comes to the way that Hoffman portrayed him.  There's technical skill here, but honestly even by the low bar I set for Hoffman, this is the least of his Oscar nominated roles, and feels more like an afterglow citation by people still enamored with his work in Capote.

Much better is Casey Affleck, a fine actor who occasionally gets in his own way in terms of technical skill.  This is the film that pushed him out of the way of his brother's shadow, likely leading to him eventually taking the Oscar for Manchester by the Sea.  Though he's never as good as Pitt, who has the more understated and challenging role, Affleck brings a mannered approach to Robert Ford that makes you constantly guessing about him and his motives, perhaps because as Ford is written his motives seem to always be changing.  Is he in love with James, or is he simply trying to become him?  It's not clear, but Affleck doesn't shy away from the Celluloid Closet angles of this part, and though his speaking pattern is sometimes frustrating, it's never out-of-character and well-considered.  My biggest problem with this nomination is that Affleck is the main character, hardly supporting at all-he has more screen-time than even Pitt himself, and was only relegated to supporting because he was not yet a matinee idol.  I dock quite a few points for what is one of the most egregious cases of category fraud I've seen in a long time.

Tom Wilkinson arguably has some category fraud in his corner as well, though at least his work in Michael Clayton could convincingly be called supporting (there's no question that George Clooney's titular character is the main point of focus).  Wilkinson, like Hoffman, plays this part so bombastically it's hard to take it seriously.  Honestly-that whole scene where he proclaims "I am Sheva the God of Death" is so manically over-the-top that you almost wonder if Tony Gilroy is playing this part for comedy.  Unlike the very specific decisions made by his costar Tilda Swinton, this feels more muddled and all-over-the-place, and very different from Wilkinson's fine work in In the Bedroom.  A disappointment, but he's aided by Michael Clayton being quite a fine film.

The last two performances are from actors giving, in my opinion, the best performances of their careers.  Javier Bardem managed to turn his Anton Chigurh into a movie star-career, getting him spots in major cinematic franchises like James Bond and Pirates of the Caribbean, and overall becoming a household name.  His Chigurh is pitch-perfect, and still lives up to the hype.  He keeps the character foreboding, dangerous, and unknowable.  There's no need for back story here, which the Coen Brothers smartly avoid, as he's simply a demon that is intent on winning at all costs.  The film lives and dies on this performance, and Bardem knows it, keeping his part restrained when other actors (including, quite frankly, Bardem himself in later years) would have over-played their hands with such a plum part.  That he keeps such an iconic villain subdued is a miraculous feat, and shows why he became an acting icon after this movie.

Finally, we have Hal Holbrook playing the annual part of an aging character actor who finally gets his due from the Academy.  The only thing that upsets this cliche is that Holbrook is marvelous in Into the Wild, playing a lonely man drawn in by the youth and kindness of a wayward stranger.  Holbrook gets scenes that could play to the rafters, but he keeps them back, eventually bringing out a difficult vulnerability that shatters against the emotionally-stunted Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) when he asks him to adopt him.  The pain on Holbrook's face, finally taking a chance after a long life of playing by the book, and then realizing that he was rejected, is marvelous-it honestly haunted me for months after seeing the picture, and made me think the movie itself is better than it is.  That's what great supporting actors do, and I'm so glad that Holbrook got to be included in Oscar's pantheon after a long career as a bit player in entertainment.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were largely similar to the Oscars despite them getting a bit more creative in other categories, with only Holbrook missing (the HFPA, as is their style, went with the movie star in a crowd-pleaser: John Travolta in Hairspray).  The SAG Awards skipped Hoffman instead, a bit of a surprise considering he seemed like a sure thing with Oscar at the time, picking Tommy Lee Jones for No Country for Old Men.  Finally, the BAFTA Awards also went with Jones, as well as Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, skipping over the more America-centric Holbrook & Affleck.  The only thing all lineups had in common was an easy win for Bardem, who was giving one of those performances that couldn't be ignored.  For me, it's hard to tell whether it was Travolta or Jones in sixth place, but considering Jones's shock Best Actor nomination part of me thinks Travolta's major comeback in 2007 was the sort of crowd-pleasing hit that just missed with AMPAS.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I've never been as smitten by Tommy Lee Jones as some other filmgoers, but honestly-his work as Ed Tom Bell is the best performance of his career, and deserved a nomination.  I also would have found time for Max von Sydow's tortured father in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as one of the many outstanding supporting performances in Zodiac, with Mark Ruffalo likely being my favorite of the bunch.

Oscar’s Choice: An easy win for Bardem, though second place is harder to call-would they have gone with the sentimental favorite of Holbrook or would a quick second win for Hoffman have been in the cards?  I could make a case for either, but I'm guessing Hoffman would have had an edge.

My Choice: I also can't stop what's coming, and will pick Bardem over Holbrook.  In third place is Affleck, who would have been a threat for going higher were it not for the category fraud, followed by Wilkinson and finally Hoffman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the consensus choice of Bardem, or does someone want to make an argument that another man deserved this trophy?  Who was second place, Hoffman or Holbrook?  Who was sixth place-Jones or Travolta?  And which Zodiac supporting player was the most snubbed?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2007: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2007

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

OVP: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Film: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Stars: Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, John Ashton, Amy Ryan

Director: Ben Affleck

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actress-Amy Ryan)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I never really thought about Ben Affleck until he became a director.  I always thought he was a bit of a bore.  His acting was a bit of a dud, never really rising above semi-serious.  He was cute, but Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio were far cuter.  And his role as a celebrity was always a bit baffling, as he was never particularly compelling (we all went hog-wild for Bennifer, Part 1 because we were obsessed with Jennifer Lopez, who might not be a great actor but is an AMAZING celebrity).  So when he took the director's chair, I wasn't really expecting much, certainly not a chillingly-wonderful movie like Argo or the avalanche of Oscar nominations that his film would elicit, putting him in the company of people like Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood who were arguably more intriguing behind the camera than in front of it.  However, I went backward on the whole Affleck-directed film thing, so that his first directing effort was actually the most recent one that I've seen, and unlike most other chapters in his career, I was genuinely curious to see what would come out of this first effort-would it be a rudimentary take on a story or would it be Citizen Kane?

(Spoilers Ahead) What I found out was that it was a lot more similar to The Town than Argo in terms of my enjoyment.  The movie finds a voice, for certain, and has occasionally strong performances, but it never quite elevates to the point of greatness that I think we would expect from Affleck after the popcorn thriller take of Argo (Argo is, to use the slight edges of simile differentiation, a great movie but not necessarily a great film).  The movie, set in South Boston, follows a Private Detective named Patrick Kenzie (Affleck) and his girlfriend named Angie (Monahan), though you'd be forgiven for not knowing her name as Affleck is not great at getting scripts with compelling female love interests.  They are trying to find the missing daughter of Helene McCready (Ryan), a drugged-out woman far more caught up in her own personal drama than in her daughter's welfare.

The film tries really hard to make a lot of strong points, and it's not a particularly bad movie even if it misses most of them entirely.  Casey Affleck is really well-cast.  He's a fine actor (better than Ben, it's true), and he has the look down pat-he's the sort of guy that's pretty enough that both men and women find him attractive (which factors into a weirdly homo-erotically charged scene in a bar), and his cough-cold voice and giant eyes make his occasional bad-assery all the more shocking, and as a result, convincing.  The rest of the male roles, though, find themselves in pretty blase territory.  Ed Harris' character is too convoluted and the script does him no favors (you never really get to know his motives), but Harris himself doesn't help matters by remaining too much of a mystery, even when he's supposed to be revealing.  Morgan Freeman isn't playing exactly the sort of role that we've come to expect from him, but his stature as a movie star sort of gives away the "twist" ending (there's no way an Oscar-winner of his prestige would sign up for such an inconsequential role unless something was coming later), and Freeman trades more on his voice and intense eyes than he does on making this a rounded human being.

As I indicated above, the film has serious script issues.  Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane (which I haven't read, so I don't know if that's where the root of these problems lies or not), the movie rushes certain scenes too much and the mid-movie fakeout (it sure feels like an ending) is arduous considering the fact that we know there's still an hour to go and this can't be the end of this chapter of the story.  The finale also glosses over certain things (Ed Harris' motivations being critical), and feels weirdly paced for a film that generally seems pretty deliberate (or again, that might just be Affleck's delivery distracting us).

The film received one Oscar nomination, for Best Supporting Actress, and in a nice twist it's a genuine supporting performance (2007's Supporting Actress lineup stands out in this way, as none of the women nominated are co-leads pretending to be supporting).  Amy Ryan won her only Oscar nomination (to date) for Helene, a plum assignment for an actress as she gets to be loud, bawdy, troubled, and strung out.  The performance is never bad, and occasionally strong (Ryan knocks the ambivalence toward her daughter in the final scene out of the park, and clearly got the nomination at that moment), but I would have loved to have seen a little more layering.  What were her actual thoughts about her daughter leaving-she gives a peak of herself, the way that she wants to be noticed, through in that final scene that intrigued me more than anything else in the film (it's a good finale), but otherwise she's going through the motions of a BAIT-y part.  Ryan's a strong actor-I would have liked to see her play a little bit more with this character considering its prominence in her filmography.

Those were my thoughts on this 2007 Oscar nominee (expect to see a lot more from this year in the next few weeks).  In the meantime, what were yours?  Where does Amy Ryan sit in your Best Supporting Actress lineup (I still have one more nominee to go!)?  And where does Gone Baby Gone rank in your personal Ben Affleck favorites list?  Share in the comments!

OVP: ParaNorman (2012)

Film: ParaNorman (2012)
Stars: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick, Casey Affleck, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Leslie Mann, Elaine Stritch, John Goodman
Directors: Chris Butler and Sam Fell
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

There's a brief lull in August and September where the fall television season hasn't started, the summer blockbusters have come and gone, and the shiny allure of the Oscar season is starting to light up your "to view" lists.  During this time, I try to catch up on reading, exercising, maybe even picking up the phone and attempting to interact with my fellow man.  However, I still have that urge to sit in a darkened theater and involve myself with a risky "late Summer" film, risky in the sense that most of what's thrown out here is the tripe that wasn't going to make enough money to be released in June, but it's not going to make a dent at the Oscars.  It's not quite as bad as being released in March, but it's close.  And so, this calm and peaceful Saturday, I decided to take a chance on a strange little kid named Norman.

The fantastic nature of ParaNorman, made by the same studio that brought us the wonders of Coraline, is that it goes so far beyond its premise, and in fact, our main character almost doesn't need to be able to talk to ghosts, which he can.  He could just as easily have been a boy that's into ballet, into collecting thimbles, into Revolutionary War reenactments.  The point of the matter is that Norman is unusual, and in a town that wants him to conform to what's expected.  This is a movie with a message, that it's okay to be different, and that judging someone for being unusual (or for stereotyping) can lead to dire consequences, and surprises, including some for the audience.

For as an audience member, I'll admit rather freely that I was about thirty minutes in and I was thinking that we'd gone through yet another stock animated retread-your standard weird kid who will save the town, fat kid who becomes his friend, vapid older sister who is oblivious, neanderthal jock who is as dumb as a rock, and a bully who will eventually be saved by his bullied victims.  And yet-that's not the case in this movie.  (SPOILER ALERT) In the end, the vapid older sister is the one who not only stands up for her brother against her parents, but does it without compromising herself.  Ditto the bully who strikes out with every girl, and is really a massive dork underneath the punching.  And in one of the most stunning developments in animated progress, the jock, Mitch, (voiced by Casey Affleck) turns out to be gay, which I believe is a first for mainstream animated films-correct me if I'm wrong in the comments.

The film also goes into some genuinely dark and scary places-mob mentality (headed by a stock drama teacher that still delivers guffaws courtesy of vocal maestro Alex Borstein), and the death of a young girl who is accused of witchcraft and terrorizes the town only to be saved by Norman.  The film is also extremely beautiful and eye-popping, considering the advancements that stop-motion is able to allow, and the many hilarious sight gags littered on the billboards and signs throughout the town.

There's a lot more to discuss (mass consumerism of a tragedy, the clear anti-bullying message, the lack of a score making this seem more like an Oscar-nominated short than a feature length summer film, but I want to hear from you on it, and if you haven't seen it-go out and support what is one of the more daring animated films to hit mainstream theaters in a while.