4 Mini Reviews

All right-truth be told right now, I'm in "list-finishing" mode, an article I might be writing next week if I can find the time.  But for now, I've decided that it's time to get 2018 done, and rather than just skip some of the movies that I've seen, I am going to instead do short reviews of a dozen movies that I saw in 2018, many even from that year.  I chose these movies because they were not Oscar-nominated (so they won't be referenced when we go back to those years in 2018) and because while I always find it cool to have a full review, I don't think it is as critical to give each of these twelve their own articles.  Don't worry-missing Best Picture nominees Green Book and BlacKKKlansman, as well as one of my personal Best Picture nominees (The Other Side of the Wind), will still get the full review treatment, but as I catch up on my reviews, sacrifices had to be made.  Don't assume this will be a habit-once I catch up, I plan on staying that way & we'll be back to one film to a review.  Until then, enjoy this look at some of the many flicks I saw in 2018!

(Note-I get spoiler-y about Early Man, Annihilation, Ant-Man, and I Feel Pretty-if you haven't seen them and are planning to, skip over those reviews and just read the other ones!)

Early Man (dir. Nick Park)

This was, sadly, the first movie ever that I watched entirely by myself...not just me going by myself, but no one in the theater, a record I enjoyed attributing to a movie but didn't like because I support movie theaters and because, despite its obvious flaws, Early Man has charm.  A movie depicting cavemen playing soccer, it trades a lot in the British humor that has made Nick Park a staple at the Oscars (Early Man is the rare movie that didn't compete from Park's Aardman Studios), and occasionally falls flat, but there's a lot of heart in this film, and some clever villainy as Tom Hiddleston embraces his dark side as Lord Nooth.  A passing fancy, but still pleasurable and worth a quiet night in if you've liked Park's previous work. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Annihilation (dir. Alex Garland)

Arguably the movie that I would have most liked to explore in a larger review (you're going to notice four 2018 movies that aren't Oscar nominees that I do give full treatment to, and if you play close attention you'll notice an odd one I highlight as opposed to Annihilation, so call me out for it when you do).  That said, while I adored Ex Machina a few years back, this one seemed to share that movie's ambitions, but not necessarily its execution.  The final third of the movie is gorgeous but makes little sense, and if the metaphor is what it's supposed to be (that we're constantly going to destroy ourselves), you can turn on the news and get that a bit more clearly.  Portman is fine, but there's not enough depth in her main character, and the same can be said for Oscar Isaac as her missing husband.  It's still got great effects (should have been cited for them with AMPAS), but there's too many moments where Garland steers into Christopher Nolan-esque "isn't this cool?" storytelling for comfort. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Ant-Man (dir. Peyton Reed)

The best of these four films, Ant-Man is actually one of the finest Marvel movies, period.  I loved the way that they don't necessarily feel the need to have a tragic backstory, and don't confuse comedy for weird like they did in Thor: Ragnorak.  Paul Rudd is flawless (and his abs are well-exploited in a way I wasn't expecting) as Ant-Man, a hapless loser who becomes a random superhero, but seems to genuinely enjoy his powers.  Evangeline Lilly matches well with him, but best-of-all is Michael Douglas as Lilly's father.  Douglas is one of my all-time favorite actors, and watching him latch into a proper movie star role in a genuinely good movie for the first time in (decades?) is an unabashed joy for me.  Add in truly innovative special effects, and you have the best Avengers film that doesn't have "Winter Soldier" in the title. (Ranking: 4/5 stars)

I Feel Pretty (dir. Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein)

Amy Schumer's career since Trainwreck has been, well, the obvious title pun seems fitting.  She cancelled her hit TV show, and had two flops last year (I think technically Snatched broke even, but considering her promise in Trainwreck that feels like a flop).  I Feel Pretty was at least a financial success for Schumer, ensuring a future paycheck, but she has yet to capture the magic she exhibited with her show and Trainwreck, and seems to be losing the "Rom-Com Queen" wars to someone like Rebel Wilson, who seems a better fit for her material.  I Feel Pretty has too many obvious jokes, and feels more like a lecture than a movie.  The body positivity angles are so overdone, particularly by someone who the bulk of America wouldn't even notice as being "overweight" unless they put her next to Michelle Williams, that it is hokey.  Michelle Williams' turn as a cosmetics boss with a bizarre, squeaky voice, is staggering at first, but I wasn't enchanted by this either-it felt just like a weird decision to make rather than finding something specific to say about her spoiled-but-not-dumb manager.  Still, she's the best part of a dull movie-here's to hoping that Schumer finds her mojo again soon. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Café Society (2016)

Film: Cafe Society (2016)
Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Steve Carell, Blake Lively, Jeannie Berlin, Parker Posey, Corey Stoll
Director: Woody Allen
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Years ago, I decided there were ten directors that I was going to see every film they ever made as a bit of a directors project.  Admittedly, I'm still working on all ten (does anyone else have a problem where they sign up for more projects than one human being can actually accomplish?), but one of them was Woody Allen, one of only four directors on the list who actually is still living and therefore continually adding to the list, so seeing Cafe Society was kind of a given for me.  I honestly don't even watch the trailers to Woody's films any more (which is strange because Allen is one of the only film directors around who still finds a way to be mysterious and not give away his secrets in the trailers) since I know I'm buying a ticket, and since I start cold, let's start cold for you too without any spoilers.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like most of Allen's pictures (perhaps all of them-I can't think of one that doesn't), we get our resident Woody Allen character, though in this case it's a proxy in the form of Jesse Eisenberg as Bobby Dorfman, a young Jewish man who is trying to find his way to fame and fortune in Hollywood, and has an in with his uncle Phil (Carell), a high-powered talent agent in the 1930's (yes, we're time-traveling, keep up).  While working there, he falls madly in love with Vonnie (Stewart), a beautiful secretary who once had dreams of becoming a starlet but now has settled for the quieter life, finding more solace in a quiet Mexican restaurant than the glamorous homes in Beverly Hills where Bobby has hopes of taking her.  The film progresses as we find out Vonnie has been having a love affair with Phil, and is also smitten with Bobby, and is forced to choose between the two.  Because this is an Allen picture, she ends up with Phil (Woody loves the bitter with the sweet), and both she and Bobby transform as a result.  Bobby ends up married to a glamorous model (Lively) and becomes a high-powered club owner in New York, while Vonnie gives in to the vapidness of California culture and becomes part of the moneyed class she once disparaged.

While the film ends with the two of them apart, both with partners who adore them but longing for perhaps something more, the movie itself is content to just end and not really commentate too harshly on the choices we make and how you either need to accept your decisions or spend life with a mountain of "what ifs."  The film itself has a strange and plodding subplot with Bobby's family involving the mob, and not even Corey Stoll (arguably the best part of the picture, but he's the best part of every picture) can make you care about it in comparison to the love story, and the subplot gets unnecessarily dark with Corey's character getting the electric chair off-screen for killing his sister's annoying neighbor.

Overall, the film is okay.  The love triangle somewhat works, and Stewart is now confident enough as an actress (she actually had to audition for the film, purportedly her first audition since Twilight) that she sells the glamour and sex appeal of her character without a lot of stoicism.  Her Oscar-nominated costars aren't nearly as good, however.  I honestly felt like Eisenberg vastly overplayed his character's obtuse intellectualism, drawing too much on a parody of Woody than on something organic for the screen.  Carell, who was so marvelous in The Office and Little Miss Sunshine but largely hasn't impressed me in recent work, fails to deliver.  His dialogue is fun (I loved the constant name-dropping, particularly since it's 1930's Hollywood so it's more Gloria Swanson and Joel McCrea and less Marilyn and John Wayne, so it isn't as done), but his character is obnoxious and it's never clear other than power what Vonnie sees in him, and he doesn't give us that.  Is she so lost that she just projects onto everyone, or does Carell undersell his character's appeal even when she's onscreen?  I tend to think the latter, and so I would say he's the biggest weak link in the picture.

Those are my thoughts on this short, but overall less-than-impressive entry in Woody's canon.  No one will confuse this with Annie Hall, or even Match Point or Blue Jasmine, but if you have seen it please let me know some opinions-what are your thoughts about the latest entry?  Who was your best-in-show (I'm torn between Stewart, Stoll, and the great one-liners of Jeannie Berlin)?  And do you think that Woody should have put up with the ego of Bruce Willis and kept him in the picture (I tend to vote yes-this feels like the sort of part that Willis, an underrated actor, could have brought something special toward)?  Share in the comments!

Black Mass (2015)

Film: Black Mass (2015)
Stars: Johnny Depp, Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon, Jesse Plemons, Corey Stoll, Peter Sarsgaard, Dakota Johnson, Julianne Nicholson
Director: Scott Cooper
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I remember a time, not that long ago but longer than you'd think, when I would genuinely get excited whenever a new Johnny Depp movie would come out.  In the mid-Aughts, Depp's films were major events, a huge deal where his longtime edgy aura met commercial appeal and suddenly he was both a major Box Office star and the Sexiest Man Alive.  During this time he garnered three Oscar nominations, a huge following, and a fortune that would make Robert Downey Jr. jealous.  However, in the past seven years or so (ever since he put down his barber razors) he's been pretty much anathema onscreen, taking on cartoonish non-human roles (admittedly in a wildly successful turn financially in Alice in Wonderland, less so with things like Mortedecai) and watching his Q-score plummet as no one really wanted to see a new Johnny Depp movie.  In fact, when I heard that Black Mass was garnering strong reviews and Oscar buzz, my first reaction wasn't excitement but instead a gigantic groan that I would have to see a Depp film, an unthinkable reaction ten years ago.  But see the film I did, and let's investigate where my Depp love stands now, shall we?

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows the rise and fall of Whitey Bulger (Depp), one of the most notorious mob bosses of the past half-century, who ran South Boston with an iron fist and frequently was prone to fits of violence, killing a number of people he suspected of being "rats" and he himself working with the FBI as an informant all-the-while bribing his friend John Connolly (Edgerton) to keep the heat off of Bulger as he ran the city.  The film follows a lot of the traditional mob movie cliches, except here we have the advantage of knowing that a lot of what is happening, particularly the ending (where we find out men who clearly murdered numerous people ended up not serving life sentences) ends up being true and we watch a bit of an indictment of justice as people who probably should have received life without parole ended up being on the streets once again.

The film features a lot of actors of very strong background, as we get not only Depp but recent Oscar nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, rising stars Corey Stoll and Dakota Johnson, and dependable character actors like Kevin Bacon, Julianne Nicholson, and Peter Sarsgaard in key roles.  The cast list, however, is a mixed bag in my opinion.  The reviews are correct to say that Depp is back and this is his best role in years, though is that saying really anything?  Depp's performance is strong, and I love the moments where his penchant for crazy melds with the realistic human being on the screen (this is what made, say, Jack Sparrow so damn appealing-he was a cartoon, but a cartoon that resembled a human being).  Still, though, there's hardly any emoting going on here-we know so little about Bulger's motives, what drives his need for this kind of success?  The script seems to hint at it (perhaps feeling overshadowed by his more professionally successful brother, his lack of success in his personal life), but there's nothing there in Depp's performance.  We never get a sense as to why he's more attuned to the needs of a son he barely sees than his girlfriend, or what makes him become so outrageously violent, and this is a large flaw in the script.  The rest of the cast is also pretty disappointing, to be honest.  Some of the actors are good but have nothing to do (Stoll, Bacon, and Johnson in particular), while others are left with over-the-top work that you kind of just roll your eyes at while watching (Sarsgaard, in his scenery-chewing mode, and Edgerton).  Edgerton in particular has scenes where he's so obviously trying to look guilty while not looking guilty you wonder why the seemingly smart men around him don't clearly know what he's up to; he practically says "who me?" while twirling his hair like an old Looney Tunes episode.  I will admit that after The Gift (which has aged horribly in my mind), Edgerton is becoming one of those actors I realize I don't really like in anything.  About the only actors who get both a meaty role and sink their baskets are Cumberbatch (whom I am usually hot-and-cold with, but who lands his loyal but pragmatic state senator with regal aplomb, even if he occasionally indulges in a bit of scenery-chewing as well) and Nicholson (who nails her neglected wife role and whom I truly wish the film had been about-can someone give this woman more to do in her next movie, as she's more than earned it?).

The script itself unfolds rather interestingly at the beginning, with us starting in the middle of the story.  There's no Whitey Bulger origin scenes-he's already an established family man with a major crime syndicate and we don't get flashes to his childhood, which is refreshing.  However, the script then keeps a walnut shell over him.  We get little indication as to how he was able to demand such loyalty and respect, and why his associates (whom he frequently kills off or destroys their loved ones, particularly in a haunting scene with the air-headed mistress of one of his top assassins) stay with him.  We've become so accustomed to this sort of, well, "mob mentality" but the reality is that Don Corleone or the likes at least demand respect because he provides protection or cash.  Whitey Bulger is portrayed as simply a thug, and while the technical aspects of the film are impressive and occasionally the performances are good, the overacting from key players like Edgerton alongside the unknowable nature of Bulger and his organization cause the film to fail.  This may be the best thing Depp has done in years, but that's only because he's been drowning himself in Razzy Awards.  By any stretch of the imagination this is handsome but listless.

Those are my thoughts on Black Mass-tell me yours?  Do you consider this a return-to-form for Depp?  And what are his Oscar chances?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

35 Random Thoughts on the Tony Awards

This is not an optical illusion-Kelli O'Hara does indeed have a Tony

I'm sure all of us are both celebrating the Tonys (and the Triple Crown if you are so inclined) after last night, while still running agog about that scene on Game of Thrones, so instead of a cohesive take on last night's awards, I'm going to do a 35 thought rundown of what I was thinking during the night.

1. Is Something Rotten really just a Simpsons-style parody of a musical?  Or did we get the only number that it is like that?  Because I don't know if I would approve of that for a full musical, even if I liked this particular number.

2. The greatest mystery of the night: why was Dame Helen Mirren, arguably the biggest star to win all evening, also the first person to win a Tony Award?  Best Lead Actress should never be ahead of the supporting categories, and we ALL knew she'd win.  What's the deal?

3. Four handsome men tap-dancing out to end my speech would be something that would incentivize me to keep talking.

4. The Anna Chlumsky/Debra Messing matching dress thing was awesome and I wished they would have commented on it instead of just the awkward looks.  Also, this would NEVER happen at the finely-pruned Oscars.

5. What do you think Carey Mulligan and Patricia Clarkson talked about during the commercials?  Was it which one of them it's more surprising that she only has one Oscar nomination?

6. It took Alan Cumming 34 minutes to wear a dress...which is longer than I expected.

Orfeh and Andy Karl

7. Andy Karl, get out of my dreams and into my pants (it's the Tony Awards, you have to gay it up in the recap a little bit).

8. What role do you think NBC will find for now 2-time Tony Winner Christian Borle in The Wiz?

9. Is Taylor Schilling wearing a Rorschach test?

10. Annaleigh Ashford's speech was adorable.  I'd say this could help her in Hollywood, but I said the same thing about Nina Arianda a few years and that did squat.

11. Anna Wintour gets flowers, Chita Rivera gets a waltz, and Rita Wilson gets a dip while Tony Yazbeck adorably mimics Pharrell Williams from the Oscars a few years back...Broadway style.

12. Tommy Tune presents an award in honor of his Life Achivement Award since they didn't air his full-speech...hint, HINT Oscar.

13. Ashley Tisdale presenting to Vanessa Hudgens-ha!

14. I have a weirdly conflicted opinion about non-nominated musicals getting their own numbers during the show.  Partially this is good because as someone who doesn't live in NYC anymore I wouldn't get to see any part of Gigi even though I was curious (Victoria Clark, y'all), but mostly I think it's tacky for a show that relegates so many wspeeches to the commercials and pays little homage to the play categories.

Vanessa Hudgens

15. Do you think Leslie Caron is watching?

16. Joel and Jennifer Grey should have a reality TV show-I would watch that.

17. Uhh...the Fun Home/Phone Home bit was a little bit of a stretch.

18. Wait, Gigi and An American in Paris-why did they not get Leslie Caron to present?  I mean, if you get to call Marg Helgenberger a presentation-worthy celebrity...

19. It feels like Corey Stoll had a punchline but missed his cue.  Do they not have the presenters do a rehearsal at the Tony Awards, because for a crew that tries to get an audience to laugh eight days a week, it feels like a missed opportunity not to give them better material.

20. "Please recycle"..."Where are you?"..."that was the joke"...Ruthie Ann Miles was on fire winning for her Broadway debut.

21. Kristin Chenoweth's number was just...anyone want to fund a trip for me to go to NYC for a week?  I'll be ever so grateful!

22. Once again, a weird order for the awards-Best Play before Best Revival of a Play?  What's the deal?

Chita Rivera

23. Chita Rivera's number is going to be hard to top tonight.

24. Alan Cumming's weird recurring bit about Josh Groban was odd.  It would have made more sense to trumpet, say, someone who doesn't show up at every awards show he's asked, like Bradley Cooper, who is the biggest star in the room.  Speaking of...

25. L-O-V-E loved the bit where they talk about who would play the Broadway parts when they got to Hollywood.  Cooper getting his own role was the punchline, but the best bit was surely the pointed stares Alan Cumming and Kristin Chenoweth gave Harvey Weinstein.

26. I wonder whom Scott Rudin will email about his 17,000th Tony Award...is that a cheap joke?  Oh well, I'm sticking with it.

27. Nick Jonas has the personality of dry toast.  And let's be honest, if you subtract the body is not the hottest JoBro.

28. What is with the Tinkerbell interrupting Jennifer Lopez and the girl who looks like Kristen Stewart on Drag Race?

29. Bradley Cooper's mother-has she ever smiled?  Could someone find me evidence of this?

30. The Josh Groban fangirling seems especially inappropriate considering he was doing the In Memoriam segment...though the chorus of all of the Broadway singers in costume was cool.

31. Kelli O'Hara finally wins that damn Tony!  I am not like a wild Kelli O'Hara fan, but I got misty and sprung to my feet in applause-she's been waiting so long for this, and I was moved that the audience all knew it (the one standing ovation of the evening went to her).  She also knew just how to hit all of the bounces of her speech, including that great dance off-stage.

32. Even Kristin Chenoweth isn't believable as someone who is mad-she probably wanted O'Hara to win as well.

33. Neil Patrick Harris' locked box joke was funnier at the Tony Awards...and it only took 15 seconds.

34. Larry David was funny at the Tony Awards, going on a Seinfeld-esque rant, but he seems to be milking Seinfeld a lot these days (SNL did the same darn thing), so it's becoming less special.  They should have gotten Leslie Caron to present instead.

35. And finally-Jersey Boys?  Again?  Just end with Audra McDonald rapping every year instead.

This is Where I Leave You (2014)

Film: This is Where I Leave You (2014)
Stars: Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Adam Driver, Rose Byrne, Corey Stoll, Kathryn Hahn, Jane Fonda, Connie Britton
Director: Shawn Levy
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I don't care for Jason Bateman.  There, I've said, and I am not taking it back.  I watched a couple of episodes of Arrested Development in college, so I don't have that to call back on when I have so many terrible movies thrown at me.  He was awful in The Switch (or The Change-Up...whichever one had Ryan Reynolds...why do his films have such generic, interchangeable titles?), he was the least interesting character in Horrible Bosses-I'm just not that into him.

That being said, the rest of this cast reads like a dream, so I was torn about this movie.  I mean-Fey, Driver, Byrne, Stoll, Hahn, Fonda, and Britton?  Yes please!  It reads like a list of actors that I either am totally in love with or on my way, so even with the middling reviews and the middling leading man, this film had too much curiosity factor to ignore.  And I have to say, I don't quite get the hatred-while certainly not perfect, there was a lot to offer from this movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) Bateman's Judd is a man lost in horrible mid-life crisis cliches.  His wife cheated on him with his boss, so he's out both a job and a spouse, and to make matters worse, his dad just died, and he's not sure how he feels about it.  He and his three siblings: Wendy (Fey), Phillip (Driver) and Paul (Stoll) all have to sit shiva for seven days after their father's passing, meaning that a family that has long had tangential relationships with each other all need to watch their lives (and their baggage) unfold in close proximity to each other.

The really interesting thing about this movie is how much it is a throwback to films from the 1980's, where we would have large, expansive family dramas that added up to a series of different chemistry pairings between a myriad of actors.  In this era of superhero films and not knowing the difference between a straight comedy and a straight drama onscreen (though oddly that combination has been perfected on television), it's nice to see a director having mastered that onscreen.  Of course, it helps that he cast all actors who have been a regular character on a recent television series, since they all know the cadences associated with creating chemistry with everyone on the show.

Picking an MVP in the cast is easy, of course.  Anyone who has seen the trailers knows that Adam Driver was going to be something to behold onscreen, and they were right.  Driver is electric the moment that he comes onscreen, screaming shit in the middle of a psalm because he is late to his own father's funeral, pays no attention to anyone as he proclaims "mommy!" while hugging Fonda and then trying to grab the rabbi's testicles (it sounds weird, but works in the moment).  Driver has sort of upstaged Lena Dunham in the ensuing years of Girls, becoming a young Daniel Day-Lewis in its cast-fascinatingly sexy, intensely watchable, and irresistible to the camera.  If he hasn't become one already, he's on track to be a major movie star and I would be stunned if he doesn't have both an Oscar nomination and a Vanity Fair cover in the next few years.

The rest of the cast is strong too, though.  I'd like for Fonda to get something a bit meatier, but this is someone who pulled off one of the great family dramas of the 1980's, so she knows how to keep things interesting onscreen (and not be reduced by the frequent jokes about her breast augmentation).  Corey Stoll and Kathryn Hahn provide oddly strong layers to a side couple who are desperately trying to have a baby, which is slowly ruining their marriage (and while Stoll adds layers to everything he does, can someone give the very talented Hahn the chance to do the same more often?).  And Fey is heartbreaking as a woman who is lost in her own suburban dream-married to a rich and successful man who has no time for her, she pines for the days of loving a man she wanted when she was twenty but couldn't have.  To be frank, I don't know why we were centered on Judd rather than Wendy this entire movie-he was probably the least interesting and most routine of all of the characters we were encountering.  Had we made this film about Wendy or Paul, I think we could have made this a five-star film, but Bateman is for some reason a bigger star than the rest of the cast, so we simply have a very good movie (I know it's based on a book, but admit it-he's the Altman sibling you were least interested in by the end).

Overall, though, the critics were wrong on this film-it's a great family dramedy: a little bit of laughs, a little bit of heart, a little bit of the bitter-the sort of film you catch on cable and wonder why they don't make them anymore.  Except they just did.  So see it.

And if you did, share your thoughts below-am I the only person not in the Bateman camp?  Is everyone else intensely in love with Adam Driver?  Are we all wishing that Tina Fey or Jane Fonda would get another great acting showcase?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

C.O.G. (2013)

Film: C.O.G. (2013)
Stars: Jonathan Groff, Denis O'Hare, Corey Stoll, Casey Wilson, Dean Stockwell, Dale Dickey
Director: Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Oscar History: No Nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

David Sedaris' intimate stories lend themselves well to audio books and public readings, but not necessarily to the cinema, so I wasn't surprised to hear that this was the first adaptation of one of his stories for the big screen.  His inner narrative is so important to shaping a book, that from the moment this movie started and there was a lack of Groff's inner thoughts as a framing device, I knew that we'd be in trouble.

(Spoilers ahead) The film has so many elements that I enjoyed, though, I felt that I could occasionally find my way through the film without too much difficulty.  The film focuses on Samuel (Groff) a man who has abandoned his Yale education and his posh home life to "rough it" in Oregon, trying to live a Grapes of Wrath lifestyle, and will soon be joined by a female friend who thought of the idea.  As goes the best laid plans of mice and men, Samuel is abandoned by his female friend and decides to stick it out in hopes of finding some sense of self.  After spending a few weeks picking apples, he moves on to a job in a factory, where he befriends a handsome man named Curly (Stoll) and eventually becomes involved with a religious zealot named Jon (O'Hare) whom he meets in an earlier scene in the movie, where he receives a pamphlet with the initials C.O.G.

The meaning of these initials is supposed to remain a mystery throughout the entire film, but for anyone with half a packet of sense (or who saw the trailer to this film), they clearly stand for "child of God" and the fact that Samuel cannot instantly realize this makes me question what the qualifications are to get into Yale.

This obtuseness about the motives of the characters rings throughout the entire film.  The performers (particularly Stoll and a surprisingly dramatic Wilson) all rise above the film with little exception, but the narrative devices never quite work on-screen.  In particular, the fact that they're trying to make a "film about a gay man that isn't about him being gay" is particularly exhausting because the film is about him finding himself.  This is something that I hear from a lot of actors and gay actors; "the character's gay, but that's not all he's about" is a standard line in interviews, and they're right (and shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with two brain cells?).  Indeed, there are moments of my life, days even, where I don't think about being gay at all-nothing that comes up that day is any different than if I had been straight.  However, and this is a big however, when you're discussing coming-of-age and finding your place in the world in your twenties, ignoring the character's sexuality is a fatal flaw.  You can try to be edgy by having a gay character that's focusing on something else, but that's not going to work if you're frequently skirting around the issue.  Groff's Samuel is frequently alone onscreen, and has clearly dealt with homosexuality in some fashion (he's not on speaking terms with his parents for a clear reason), so why ignore it entirely.

The other really bad (in my opinion, film-killing) error in the movie is the casting of Corey Stoll.  This seems odd to me, because Stoll is one of my favorite emerging actors at the moment.  He's the best thing about Midnight in Paris, the best thing about House of Cards, and actually the best thing about C.O.G.  He finds layers in Curly that we didn't expect, and has a great lived-in quality about the man that has had to hide on the skirts of his sexuality for many years.  However, the fatal flaw is that Stoll is far, far too good-looking to make this part seem believable.  David Sedaris quipped upon hearing that Stoll had been cast that if the real Curly had looked like Stoll, he would still be in Oregon, and the movie never gives us enough reason in the early scenes to understand Samuel's rejection of this kind (he isn't later, but he is up-until-this-point) and attractive man.  In fact, the film shows Samuel masturbating in a scene immediately after meeting Curly, but then rejects any concept of them having sex together.  By completely ignoring the fact that Samuel is coming-to-terms with his sexuality (which, again, doesn't jive with the fact that he came out to his parents-no one comes out to their parents until they are certain), the film leaves this pivotal scene, which shapes the rest of the narrative, without any rhyme or reason.

The movie occasionally finds something meaningful to say about the way that religion is used as a tool for different purposes and that we can all be hypocrites with the right opportunity, but it never fully recovers from this encounter.  What could have been a truly interesting film about the complications of sexuality or religion gets thrown asunder when the director/writer won't admit a simple fact: his main character is a gay man.

Thoughts on House of Cards

I'm aware I'm late to the party here, but in a party I'm even later to, I don't have Netflix streaming.  I still have Netflix, but it's in the discs that come to my apartment; they aren't viewed on my computer. I use it to see obscure OVP films and not to watch random HBO and Showtime series.  Therefore, it wasn't until Christmas that I had access to a Netflix streaming, and I decided to indulge in one of the site's original series, House of Cards.

House of Cards on paper should be perfect for me.  I have always been enamored with both movie stars and with politics, and this series from David Fincher does both.  You have the eternally charismatic Kevin Spacey in the best role he's done since his late 1990's do-no-wrong period, as well as Robin Wright, Corey Stoll, and Kate Mara, all actors that I have enjoyed in some fashion in the past.  And then you have the intricacies of Washington, politics at its most vindictive and calculating, something that I pore through daily posts on Roll Call and The Hill in hopes of finding.

And yet, I wasn't impressed.  It wasn't the fault of certain devices in the show (I rather enjoyed the Kevin Spacey "fourth-wall-breaking"), but in other aspects of the series.  I would blame it on the binge viewing, but I have indulged in this practice in the past with no issue, most recently with USA's highly-addictive Suits.  Instead, it was a couple of other factors that caused me to wane in my interest, despite finishing the entire first season.

For starters, cable and in particular a website like Netflix hasn't figured out a way to react to audience opinion.  We live in an age where viewers can go on Twitter to spill on the latest developments on Scandal and Revenge and showrunners are able to know what visceral reactions the audience is having to a shift on the show.  Shows either are able to operate above this (HBO does this, where everything is filmed prior to the start of the season) or they fall under the weight of such pressure.  House of Cards, for example, would have gained from a little bit of audience reaction to certain characters when they were trying to breath out characters.  I'm months late to the season, but certainly someone had to complain about how the show seems to only really develop four characters despite nearly twenty having decent-sized roles throughout the year.  If you aren't one of the big four leads, you don't matter to the rest of the series, and none of the supporting actors are trying hard enough to distinguish themselves.  Perhaps with some audience interaction we would have gotten more from Christina or Rachel, both flawed but promising characters.

My biggest issues, though, were with the realism and the writing in the series.  The show knows how to put together a monologue (it's David Fincher, after all), and there's always a handsomeness to the show, but the entire plot is far too convenient and too contrived.  Are we really to believe that someone like Corey Stoll's Peter Russo was able to sustain a long career in Washington and politics with the drug issues he has (for those that argue, Trey Radel is in his first term, not multiple sessions in and ready to run for governor)?

Worse, though, is basically everyone that tangles with Frank Underwood.  Every series has their impenetrable leading man, the one who constantly soars while others falter, but haven't we moved beyond that with shows like Mad Men, where Don Draper can fail and continue to persist?  Frank Underwood regularly tussles with the Speaker of the House, President, Vice President, and White House Chief of Staff, all four of which are portrayed as absolute morons.  Let me tell you-even the most milquetoast of Chiefs of Staff wouldn't act so much as a secretary to the president, particularly in the face of the third highest-ranking House member.  The Majority Whip is an important post, but at the very least these two people would be equals, and Frank wouldn't treat her as his personal secretary.  The fact that Sakina Jaffrey is the only woman of color on the show and gets relegated in such a way when her character could be so much more is even more disappointing.

This destruction of facts caused me to not enjoy the show even when there were enjoyable moments.  My friend Pat frequently complains about the realism of tennis in the movies (he's a great tennis player/enthusiast), and I find that I'm that way with politics.  I have trouble enjoying the unparalleled success of someone like Frank Underwood when I have to compare it to real life where even the most outstanding of politicians couldn't get out of this many jams.  With this lack of realism, I found myself not only second-guessing the plot, but also some of the performances.

It's difficult, for example, not to compare Claire Underwood to Mad Men's Betty Draper (just to clarify, this is a compliment from this major January Jones as Betty fan) but as the series progresses this comparison becomes less and less favorable to Robin Wright.  While Betty was pushed and put into her situation by circumstance, Claire's actions, decisions, and demeanor all remain ice queen but unthawed.  There's so little hint to why she is so ambitious (she's Lady Macbeth without the need-to-succeed or a motive) and why she allows her marital Ashley Madison lifestyle.  When I saw the open marriage as centerpiece I was wildly intrigued (this is something we rarely see, even on Game of Thrones), but it went nowhere.  In a similar fashion, Kate Mara's newshound goes from ambitious-and-ruthless to girl-on-the-side, and then Harriet the Spy?  All with little to no reason, but that is this show's raison d'être.  It's all flash with no sense.

In fact, the only character and actor that truly embraces the show and becomes the standout is Corey Stoll.  His struggling congressman, up until the point where he crashes and burns again was the most interesting.  You could truly have built a show around his struggles with addiction as he attempted to move up the ladder parallel to Frank.  While the decision to kill him off (and have Frank turn the deadly key) was stunning and dramatic, it left me with little to no reason to see the second season.  I can handle a ruthless, heartless main character, but not one who goes unchallenged.

2013 Emmy Predictions

We’re in a better late than never situation with the Emmy Awards, as most of you won’t read this until tomorrow morning, when you’ll see how wrong I was.  But for posterity’s sake, here are my Emmy predictions, ranked from most to least likely.  For Miniseries, check here.

Best Comedy Series

Modern Family

The Big Bang Theory

Girls

Louie

30 Rock

Veep

I’m aware I didn’t include Arrested Development, but I’m just not quite feeling it.  The old guard votes on the Emmy Awards, and while AD will certainly have one of the best-ever runs for an online show, I’m just not quite there yet for a show that is broadcast by such a non-traditional outlet.  AD could make it, of course, taking out likely Veep, which had a better-than-its-first season, and I’m not entirely sold that The Office is out of the running for its strong final season.

Best Actress in a Comedy Series

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep

Lena Dunham, Girls

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Zoeey Deschanel, New Girl

This race is really seven women wide, as stunningly a tie resulted in seven nominees last year, with the other contender being Melissa McCarthy.  McCarthy has a lot of goodwill in Hollywood (she’s a bonafide movie star at this point), but her show doesn’t have the critical backing to get her in again.  My guess is she’s gone, though if The Heat is too big to ignore,  don’t count out Falco or Deschanel missing.  Also, wouldn’t you love to see Sutton Foster nominated here?  I am so depressed that that show hasn't been renewed yet (and looks likely for that big syndication deal in the sky)

Best Actor in a Comedy Series

Louis C.K., Louie

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Don Cheadle, House of Lies

Jason Bateman, Arrested Development

Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men

Bateman’s enough of a big screen star at this point for me to think he pulls this off, despite the Netflix handicap.  Matt LeBlanc was once in Emmys good graces, and is an outside possibility for Episodes, as is Jake Johnson for New Girl (though if both he and Deschanel and Greenfield make it, could it be the surprise contender in Best Comedy Series?).  However, Emmy loves what they already have, and the gargantuan ratings that continue to be seen for Two and a Half Men may leave Jon Cryer with an eighth nomination for the critically-lambasted series.  And with Big Bang on the cusp of winning the big prize, a third trophy for Parsons is not out of the question (and this year he can actually fully acknowledge his life partner.

Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Mayim Bialik, The Big Bang Theory

Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

Jessica Walter, Arrested Development

Kaley Cuoco, The Big Bang Theory

Honestly, I have large reservations about the final three (the first three seem certain)-Walter has the Netflix handicap, Krakowski gets nominated every year and never wins (and Emmy isn’t always nostalgic for final seasons), and Cuoco doesn’t have the acting pedigree that some of the others have.  Merritt Wever is a possibility to replace one of them, but despite critical love for her work, she was a surprise last year.  Betty White is also a possibility, but Hot in Cleveland seems to be in the sunset.  Allison Williams is also a possibility, but her character is intensely unlikeable, so I don’t quite think she’s there yet.  I’m fully expecting one of these women to be wrong, and this is the category I have a feeling I’ll be saying, “duh, of course that would hit” tomorrow morning.  And I pictured Sofia because, though I feel like Bowen or Bialik are probably going to win here, Vergara's work in the series is one of the show's best performances, and if she doesn't win this year, I think that the ship may have sailed.

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Ed O’Neill, Modern Family

Max Greenfield, New Girl

Will Arnett, Arrested Development

Bill Hader, Saturday Night Live

Jeffrey Tambor is my guess for another Netflix-related casualty, so I’m just going with the television-favorite Will Arnett for Arrested.  Jesse Tyler Ferguson has always seemed like Emmys weak link of the four Modern Family guys, even though Stonestreet was always my opinion of the weakest acting link of the bunch, so I’m guessing that he manages to miss this time and that they continue to honor Hader instead, though that is not what smart money should be bet upon.  And finally, if my beloved Adam Driver gets a nomination tomorrow, I promise not to complain about any other nominees…for at least the first two paragraphs of my rant.  And am I the only one who is feeling Greenfield vs. O'Neill for the win here?

Best Drama Series

Homeland

Breaking Bad

Downtown Abbey

Mad Men

Game of Thrones

Boardwalk Empire

I’m aware that skipping House of Cards is probably a fool’s errand, but I just don’t see it scoring this high, and am a bit perplexed by everyone’s confidence in it.  If it, in particular, shatters the glass ceiling I suspect that I will have no qualms about guessing web-based series in the future.  In the meantime, Boardwalk looks incredibly weak from an awards-perspective, and so if it isn’t House of Cards that takes it out,  could it be the TV Critics Award favorite The Americans?  I definitely need to get on that series (I’m aware that my not watching the first three series on this list makes me a bad person, but in the case of the first two you can only hear “it’s the best thing ever” enough times before it starts getting annoying, and for some reason I never gave Downton a try).  If network television somehow pulls the miracle and gets a nomination here, it will be for either The Good Wife or Scandal.

Best Actress in a Drama Series

Claire Danes, Homeland

Kerry Washington, Scandal

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Michelle Dockery, Downtown Abbey

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Connie Britton, Nashville

Keri Russell, Vera Farmiga, Glenn Close, and Robin Wright are all perfectly respectable guesses for the final slot, and I’d normally agree with you, but they have to throw something at the best (perhaps only) critically-and-commercially successful freshman network drama, and Emmy favorite Connie Britton seems like your best bet for a reward.  I’m starting to feel like Kerry Washington’s win is inevitable despite a strong argument in favor of Danes, aren’t you?  Washington would make history as the first African-American woman to win in this category, and with the huge word-of-mouth success for her show, a rarity in network television, is something to be admired. 

Best Actor in a Drama Series

Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

Damian Lewis, Homeland

Kevin Spacey, House of Cards

Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Jeff Daniels, The Newsroom

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

This may be the lineup I am most confident in for tomorrow’s announcement.  Cranston, Lewis, and Hamm are mortal locks, Daniels is a movie star breaking out in a television series, Kevin Spacey has two Oscars and no Emmys, and Buscemi is an Emmy perennial.  Hugh Bonneville at least needs to be mentioned considering his nomination last year, but I don’t think he has what it takes to return with a field this marquee.  And the winner also seems the most certain-despite strong competition, it's hard to imagine Cranston not winning this yet again.

Best Supporting Actress in a Drama

Maggie Smith, Downtown Abbey

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Christine Baranski, The Good Wife

Anna Gunn, Breaking Bad

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Monica Potter, Parenthood

I really don’t want to put Monica Potter.  This isn’t because she’s not good (I don’t watch the show, but critics seem to be pretty uniformly in favor of her), but because it doesn’t make sense for Emmy to go so out on a limb for a mid-series performance with a character that was already established on the show.  A repeat nomination for Elizabeth McGovern makes way more sense, but pundits seem uniformly behind Potter.  If Potter does break the glass ceiling, however, don’t be surprised if she can ride that to a win: The Good Wifers seem intent on splitting the vote, Breaking Bad doesn’t usually highlight women at awards shows, Mad Men never wins acting trophies, and the Emmys are probably pissed that Maggie Smith always gets nominated and never shows up.

Best Supporting Actor in a Drama

Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad

Mandy Patinkin, Homeland

Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones

Sam Waterston, The Newsroom

Jonathan Banks, Breaking Bad

Corey Stoll, House of Cards

I really am not seeing Stoll getting nominated, but do you have someone?  Mad Men, Homeland, Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad likely have a plethora of challengers, but none really scream to mind, and so I’m going with Stoll, despite having little confidence in this pick.

And those are my selections-what about you?  What are you most hoping to see tomorrow morning?  Share in the comments!