OVP: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Film: Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Stars: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Paul Rudd, Brie Larson, Karen Gillan, Bradley Cooper, Josh Brolin
Director: Anthony & Joe Russo
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I wrote when Captain Marvel came out that it had become impossible for me to judge the films in the franchise without seeing how they ended, and so I (like every person on the planet, apparently) went out the first week Avengers 4 was in theaters and caught the final(?) chapter of the movie franchise.  The film is destined for a slice of immortality, certain to overtake Avatar as the highest-grossing film (a title it may hold forever considering global box office trends-like Avatar and Titanic before it, it’s hard to imagine what kind of movie would eventually trounce such a film).  But the better question is-is it any good?  After 11 years and 22 films, what was the series finale like?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie picks up almost exactly after we left off, with an opening eerily similar to The Leftovers (a series that is heavily borrowed from in terms of aesthetic, though not in gravitas by this picture).  Hawkeye (Renner) watches as his entire family goes up in smoke (similar to Carrie Coon's Nora on The Leftovers), and soon we find out what life is like in a world where half the planet has disappeared. Each Avenger that got left behind takes their lives in different directions.  Iron Man (Downey) settles down with Pepper Potts and has a child, Black Widow (Johansson) takes on the Nick Fury role, Hawkeye becomes an assassin, the Hulk (Ruffalo) becomes a kinder, gentler being, Captain America (Evans) runs grief sessions, and Thor (Hemsworth) just is a drunk who lets his Adonis-like figure go in favor of a Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski sort of aesthetic (though he’s still hot, and anyone who says otherwise needs corrective lenses).  The return of Ant-Man (Rudd) gives them hope that they can go back-in-time and stop Thanos, but Nebula (Gillan), Thanos’s daughter accidentally informs her father in the past that they are trying to undo his work, and as a result they have a gigantic battle where literally every character you can think of from the MCU pops up to fight Thanos.  This journey ultimately ends in the death of not only Thanos, but also Black Widow & Iron Man, and Captain America becoming too old to be an Avenger.

Here’s the deal-there’s a lot to really like about Avengers: Endgame.  The casting budget on the film had to be just impossibly large (when you’re willing to spend money to, say, just have Michelle Pfeiffer & Marisa Tomei stand at a funeral, you know you’ve entered new territory), but it’s a joy to see something so spectacular. The fight scene with Thanos is wonderful, with major moments from Captain America (people cheered in my theater when he took Thor’s hammer) and for girl power (it was hokey as hell, but I loved the “Women of Marvel Assemble” sequence, and so did the packed theater I was in).  In my opinion we have Evans, Hemsworth, & Gillan as the movie’s MVP’s (the movement to get Robert Downey Jr. an acting Oscarcitation feels a stretch, and more a nod to a truly remarkable comeback than a true acting achievement).  Gillan is giving a strong performance, and Evans/Hemsworth have carved out such wonderful dimensions with these noble guys (and have such great chemistry with everyone) that it’s terrific to get to see them together for the last time.  And there’s something to be said for the movie feeling permanently over.  The next franchises are clearly set up (Spider-Man in a few weeks, but also there’s obvious potential for a future Captain America (with Anthony Mackie as the star), Black Panther, Captain Marvel, & Guardians pictures), but it also feels like an end to at least the chapter that started in 2008, a true achievement in a world where we have to stretch movies until their story breaks.

But there’s also a lot of slog here.  Trying to fit 40-odd characters into a movie is a tough task, and certain people (Black Widow & Hulk especially) get the short end of the stick in this picture.  The movie is overlong, predictable, and doesn’t have the emotional heft of the last film’s surprise snap.  Everything in this movie feels exactly how you would have expected it to turn out.  That might be the sign of a good finale (everything was as it was supposed to be), but a movie should have at least some unexpected twists, and it might have been more interesting if we’d had characters die whom we thought might actually exist in the MCU in the future.  As a result, I’m giving this movie a 3 star rating, and think it rates under Infinity War, which felt more epic and more urgent. As a franchise, it’s hard not to commend the achievements of Kevin Feige over the past 11 years, and I’d probably go with a 4-star for the 22 parts as a whole, even if only a couple actual movies in the series rose to that same level.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)

Film: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Stars: Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Michael Nyqvist
Director: Brad Bird
Oscar History: Is it weird that this franchise has never made it with AMPAS, even in Sound or VFX?  Considering it's increasingly well-received by critics, you think it would have landed.  Either way, no, nothing from Oscar.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Tom Cruise is a great movie star.  He may be crazy, but he's truly a great movie star, and one of my favorite screen presences when he's actually firing on all cylinders.  His movies, though, have increasingly become more banal.  It's hard to imagine Cruise ever playing a risky role again like he did in Magnolia, or hell, even doing a straight-forward romance like Jerry Maguire.  His only forays into something outside of action-adventure in the past decade have been in a comedic film where he was actually not taking much of a risk at all (Tropic Thunder-even if the movie was a dud "whoa-that's Tom Cruise?!?" was always going to save him) and a musical that no one remembers (Rock of Ages, anyone?).  He might still be a matinee idol, but it's hard to get excited about him in the movies anymore from a critical perspective, and increasingly he resembles more Harrison Ford or Sylvester Stallone (going back to his most beloved creations rather than challenging himself) than someone who once made an arthouse film with Stanley Kubrick AND played a cult-of-personality narcissist for Paul Thomas Anderson in the same year.

(Spoilers Ahead) Still, though, in my opinion Cruise's best performance was John Anderton in Minority Report, so when he's at the top of his game in an action-adventure film, he is hard to best in that genre, and there are moments in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol where he succeeds on that front.  The plots of the Mission Impossible movies were always unnecessary and needlessly confusing (there's nuclear codes in the wrong hands that might lead to nuclear war...which admittedly feels a bit too real right now, so this was a strange choice for my weekend), but the real star has been the insanity of Cruise's action set pieces and the fantastically choreographed ways he fights off the bad guys.

That comes to a head in one of the most psychotic scenes I think I've ever witnessed in a movie.  I have a sincere fear of heights, particularly high, open spaces (I remember the first time I went to the top of the Empire State Building I snuck out, got my picture, and then was very ready to go back down to the earth...it's really a miracle I don't get freaked out by flying to a major degree or else I'd never get to travel).  Cruise, of course, famously does his own stunts and in a jaw-dropping sequence cascades down Burj Khalifa, the tallest building on the planet.  It's a staggering achievement, made all the more surreal by the photos that were released during press showing that he was, in fact, doing these stunts and not just enjoying the safer, but less impressive, world of CGI.  I can only imagine what it must have been like for Brad Bird to tell Cruise, after literally running down several stories outside of a building in a matter of seconds a mile above the ground, "yeah, umm, Tom, we're going to need another take."

This scene is frightening and thrilling, and pretty much worth the price of admission.  The rest of the movie isn't remotely equal to it, as Cruise doesn't bring much in terms of acting or his signature charm here and Pegg/Renner/Patton seem to be on auto-pilot, nothing particularly fascinating in what they're creating for the picture.  The movie also suffers from that skyscraper action set piece being truly jaw-dropping to the point where nothing else can remotely compare and feels like a letdown, particularly a fight in a parking ramp that should have been more interesting than it was.  Bird's a fine director, but that scene was shot in WAY too many closeups when we should have gotten the cool juxtaposition of a mountain of sports cars playing background for an intense fight with a major movie star.  Still, though, I'm giving this three stars as that ten minute sequence in the center of the film is what makes movies so special-name me a television show (or hell, name me another actor) that could do what Ghost Protocol/Cruise did in that scene.

Those are my thoughts-I know I'm late to the party here, but if you have any favorite moments to share from the fourth installment in the Mission Impossible series, put them below?  Anyone else wishing that Cruise would maybe stretch his considerable acting talents a bit more, or are we all fine with him continuing to defy the lies of nature for as long as his seemingly ageless face/body allow?  And how much money would you need to scale the world's largest building?  Share in the comments!

Wind River (2017)

Film: Wind River (2017)
Stars: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Gil Birmingham, Graham Greene
Director: Taylor Sheridan
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I have to admit, the idea of sitting through two hours of Jeremy Renner or Elizabeth Olsen at this point kind of sounded exhausting going into Wind River.  When they had their breakout roles (in The Hurt Locker and Martha Marcy Mae Marlene), they announced themselves as serious filmic talents (I would have nominated both for Academy Awards), but since then the movies they've played in, and even their talents within said films, have come into question.  That both are two of the least interesting members of the Avengers, in particular, seems a fascinating conundrum for actors that have one better performance on their resume than the likes of Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth have even come close toward despite the latter two being much better in the Marvel series.  Seeing them together, in a film from a director I've quite liked recently (Hell or High Water winning a 4-star rating on TMROJ), I was curious if Sheridan could find something special within them that was clearly on-display in their breakout hits.

(Spoilers Ahead) Wind River centers around a murder, or at least that's what is heavily implied when Cory (Renner), a hunter with the DNR finds the body of a young woman in the snow.  As the film moves on, we learn the critical role this girl played in Cory's life, and the death of his daughter (she was her best friend and the girl that called him to tell her that his daughter was missing), and we get a case of the well-trod but still fertile territory of parent-dealing-with-the-loss-of-their-child.  The investigation into the murder leads us into a poverty-stricken, crime-riddled reservation that is not friendly to even Graham Greene's local Police Chief, much less the young woman Jane (Olsen) who is here from the FBI, and rather green-behind-the-gills.  The film unfolds quickly and rapidly, with a pretty quality final showdown between the killers and the cops (that results in more death than you'd expect), albeit the concluding moments of the film stretch way too long when you wish they'd have ended the picture with Renner's snowy mountaintop murder.

The film's central heart is Renner's Cory, and that works from a cinematic level even if you have to feel that the politically correct angle is dangling pretty close to "line crossed."  The film invests ferociously in the idea of the "white male savior" as there's no reason that Renner's character needs to be white-this isn't based on a specific true story from what I can tell, just an amalgamation, so he's not playing a real person.  It becomes particularly condescending when Greene and Olsen's characters frequently make mistakes and defer to his knowledge, despite them being the actual law enforcement characters who are trained for this work.  Olsen's role in particular was sometimes hard to watch from the way her character was treated by the writers; the scene where she's unprepared for the cold of the winter feels a little hackneyed and "let's trade in big city cliche" for my taste; spoken as someone who used to live in the desolated cold north countryside, I can speak from experience that most people are at least somewhat prepared for such events, and also that her car windows wouldn't be that iced-over if she'd been driving for longer than twenty minutes (nitpicking, but still).

Olsen's role is so vastly underwritten, I don't know if she could have saved it, but she doesn't as it feels like a stock character-a lesser facsimile of Clarice Sterling, constantly being guided by a man in her attempts to right the wrongs on-display in the film.  Renner is far, far better, finding an introverted quiet in his demeanor, never overplaying his hand even when the writers give him ridiculous things to say in the back twenty minutes of the movie.  In my opinion, this might be his best performance since The Hurt Locker-I don't know that comes across as a compliment, but I mean it as such and it proves that the big-paychecks he's been cashing in mindless franchise installments haven't squelched his gift completely.  Combined with a weird assuredness that Sheridan brings to the showdown toward the film's end (a breathless, hard-to-watch, but nonetheless effective piece of cinema), this is a movie I'd recommend, though it's not as poetic as his Best Picture nominee from last year.

Those are my thoughts on Wind River, one of those rare independent films that actually gained theaters throughout the summer, and despite a pathetic August box office, will probably emerge as one of the few hits to come out of the month (perhaps the biggest loser, in fact, of August may be the studios themselves for being so slow to come out with major content as the summer waned).  If you've seen it-share yours.  And if not, please weigh in on where you see Renner and Olsen's careers going-do you feel like they can ever outdo their breakout roles, or are they doomed to stay in their long shadows?

OVP: Arrival (2016)

Film: Arrival (2016)
Stars: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, Tzi Ma
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Oscar History: 8 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Film Editing, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing*, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

The films of Denis Villeneuve have been a hodgepodge for me, and not necessarily in a bad way.  The first of his films that I saw I was enamored with, enough to give Incendies my OVP from that year.  The next two of his pictures I caught, however, I left less-than-impressed, but mostly frustrated because I found elements of them so good.  Villeneuve starts a conversation in his films-he isn't afraid of tackling tough subjects and of giving us heroes that are deeply flawed, but my problem with him always lies in the way he can't quite go there with the ending for his characters, always giving them some moral ways out of hairy, tough situations (he has yet to approach the nasty genius of Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler, even if that feels like a movie he might have made).  With Arrival, he takes his style and directorial work into a different direction, and so my question was-can the genius he clearly has be grounded enough by looking in a different direction to finally have me unequivocally proclaim one of his English-language films a masterpiece?

(Spoilers Ahead) Arrival has that same level of frustration, but unlike Prisoners or Sicario, he actually sticks the landing, making this his best movie-to-date.  The film reads, on-paper, as somewhat traditional.  You have Louise Banks (Adams), a linguist with past experience with the CIA, telling two separate stories, one of her daughter, lost to a rare disease as a child, and one of an encounter with an alien species, and humans trying to find a way to peacefully communicate with the species, with different parts of the world coming together with differing viewpoints (war, peace, something in-between) on how to handle the aliens.

This is a pretty conventional story, and in a lesser director's hands, perhaps it would have stayed solely on that question of "are they good or are they bad?", but Villeneuve is too interesting in his approach to film to stay entirely on that question.  We see, relatively quickly in the film (for me, at least) that time is a bit loose; I was able to tell fairly early in the picture that the "flashbacks" to her daughter were actually her in the future, and that would mean that she would live past this encounter, and humanity would continue.  This may be the most frustrating aspect of the movie, in my opinion-waiting for a twist you know is going to come is agonizing in a lot of pictures (just ask anyone who's seen most of M. Night Shymalan's later work).

But Villeneuve actually finds a way to make this work for him, particularly aided by a mesmerizing performance from Adams in the central role.  He uses her passive voice and demeanor to instill in us a sense of calm, but also defeatedness.  Villeneuve's problem is penetrating an audience that is fearful of worldwide catastrophe at any moment, and finding a way to connect with them without getting an eyeroll from an increasingly jaded public.  He does that by making this hard-it's not an easy film, and very few answers are spelled out in front of us.  He trusts Adams in the central role as our ambassador to these creatures, and to trying to find a strength to be beyond ourselves, a struggle that is as difficult for an audience member as it is for Adams on the screen.  Adams smartly doesn't give you a lot of heart in her performance-she is someone who has based much of her life on a few core beliefs, and her job-but she still finds wonder through an introverted, closed-off human being.  It's a marvelous look at joy and pain, but more the former which is truly a unique way to approach a film that essentially boils down to, "would you be willing to have the worst moment of your life wiped away if it also took with you some of the best?"  The answer is of course what you'd expect from a movie (have the daughter you know will someday die), but the way that Villeneuve gets there, placidly, calmly, but with great thoughtfulness is beautiful.  Arrival is his Birdman-where all of his ticks as a director find exactly the right spot to come together, and as a result we get something illuminating.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

It is officially the weekend, but I've had the past week off, so you know, it's been the weekend for a while (I love taking a week off from work when you can-it's weirdly relaxing and sort of puts your life in order just through having days where you don't have to worry about the next stress, but instead sort of taking things at a more leisurely pace).  However, it's a "thank goodness" sort of weekend for some of you I am sure (and will be for me in a week again), so let's link it up!

On Entertainment...

-Ooh, talk about good timing (for me, that is).  Oscar-winning actress Marisa Tomei is going to be joining the cast of Empire in Season 2.  In it she will play a nemesis for Cookie (played by Taraji P. Henson on the show), which should make for some good television.  It also works well with the 2008 OVP we've been discussing for the past week and will continue into over the next few weeks, as this isn't the first time that Henson and Tomei have battled for a big prize-they were also against each other for the Best Supporting Actress trophy in 2008.  Here's to hoping that they find room for Penelope Cruz, Viola Davis, and Amy Adams while they're at it!

-Actor Jeremy Renner addressed the gay rumors in a recent interview for Playboy, which was documented at a link from Entertainment Weekly because you might be at work and probably shouldn't be reading articles at Playboy (there's a link to the full interview in the article if you are so inclined).  Renner is not what I'd consider my favorite celebrity, though he's occasionally a very good actor (like in The Hurt Locker), and it's mostly evidenced by discussions in this article.  While he doesn't have to say that he's gay (he really doesn't, that's his deal), doing the whole "I'm taking a stand by not saying anything" is not really getting the point.  It still shames gay people by making it seem like it IS a big deal, because it feels like something you need to hide.  Either get your publicist not to have the interviewer to ask the question (don't tell me you can't get that into your contract-you're a big enough celebrity to get questions pulled from an interview), or just answer it yes or no.  Also, the joke about Jennifer Lopez at the Golden Globes was pretty juvenile, regardless of who found it funny.

-IndieWire came out with its list of the worst films of 2015 so far, which true to form for every IndieWire list, seems redundant and a little too "easy."  Lists like this, unless they are done by a specific critic are always a bit clickbait and rarely offer up anything interesting (I'm linking more as a reference point so I can get this mini-rant out of my head).  The list goes after easy targets like Katherine Heigl, Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp, Adam Sandler, and Fifty Shades of Grey while not going after any film that remotely was "popular" or trying to attack a film that had some critical consensus but not universally so.  I'm not asking for a takedown of Spy or Inside Out, but Jurassic World is easily the worst film I saw all year and belongs on a list like this (and yes, I saw Fifty Shades of Grey).  In many ways this reflects why the Razzie Awards have become pointless now-they used to target big films, occasionally even nominating performances that got Oscar nominations, but now it's just easy pop culture targets, much like this "worst of" list.

-Nathaniel discusses Claire Trevor, Agnes Moorehead, Barbara bel Geddes, Ellen Corby, and Jean Simmons in my favorite series on the internet, the Supporting Actress Smackdown (this time hitting 1948).

On Politics...

Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME)

-Despite his protestations to the contrary, Gov. Paul LePage is now being investigated by the Maine legislature over allegations that he illegally misused his power as governor to get State House Speaker Mark Evans fired.  This is a really big story if you've missed it, as the evidence seems to be relatively straight-forward, and could well lead to LePage's impeachment.  In perhaps the worst timing I've ever seen in politics, Gov. Chris Chistie (that other governor who has been investigated for months now regarding his potential abuse of power) was endorsed by LePage earlier this week, sucking up what little energy Christie's presidential campaign had going for it and providing pundits with some easy jokes.  Who next for the New Jersey governor?  Aaron Schock?

-In a week when Hillary Clinton set campaign records and Bernie Sanders was scoring massive crowds on the campaign trail, there was an awful lot of talk about Vice President Joe Biden on the campaign trail.  Rumors are starting to pop up that Biden, who recently lost his son Beau to cancer, may make a third attempt on the White House.  He got an unlikely advocate for his personage (though of course not his politics) from Senator and presidential aspirant Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who called Biden the finest man he's known in politics.  As many of you know if you read this blog regularly I'm a huge Biden supporter in general, though I tend to feel Hillary Clinton is the better 2016 candidate.  However, if Biden takes off in a major way in a bid for the White House, I would be in a bit of a pickle over whom to endorse, particularly since Clinton's bumbling on her email account and bizarre refusal to do national interviews have made me seriously question her campaigning skills (you can bet if Biden runs he'll know that this is a gap for her and will be sitting across from everyone from Robin Roberts to Chris Wallace within a month of his announcement).

-I love when politics and entertainment meet, and this is one of my favorite recent examples.  First Lady Michelle Obama gave a speech this past week addressing a group of women about the importance of educating girls around the world.  The woman who introduced her?  None other than Claire Underwood herself!  Yes, actress Robin Wright who plays the dastardly FLOTUS on House of Cards was cheekily chosen to introduce Obama at the event.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-Seriously-what is wrong with the heartthrobs on Vine?

YouTube Video of the Week...

-Gracie does an hilariously inappropriate take on how to make phone sex conversations both realistic and wildly unsexy.  Take a look (but have your headphones in if you're in public):

Just One More...

-We end with a bit of news that will inevitably be used on the big screen the next time the character is relaunched (and doesn't it feel like it's about time he gets thrown back on the big screen?).  Apparently a secret tunnel was found near the castle of Vlad the Impaler (the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula).  The legendary prince was kept in the dungeons near the castle by the Ottomans and has developed into one of the most notorious men of the 15th Century.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Film: Avengers: Age of Ultron
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson
Director: Joss Whedon
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I always feel weird reviewing movies that everyone has seen.  I get asked a lot of questions about movies and my thoughts on them as a general rule, but usually it's in the context of a movie that someone theoretically wants to see.  You know the type-the ones who will name-check 12 Years a Slave or Birdman but will actually just watch Friends reruns yet again (this may in fact be you, dear reader, and I implore you to maybe just maybe consider a movie outside of your comfort zone instead).  So even if I run counter to the norms of most reviewers, no one is going to really counter it because they haven't actually seen the movie.  This isn't the case for a massive hit like Avengers: Age of Ultron, which everyone has seen and has an opinion upon, and I've already gotten several dirty looks for calling merely "okay" and not raving about it being the "BEST MOVIE EVER!!!!"  Either way, though, it's a significant film for 2015 so I need to get my thoughts on it out into the world, so here goes...

(Spoilers Ahead...though, really, you haven't seen this yet and you're still planning on seeing it?) The film picks up relatively quickly after the last Avengers' film, with little need to introduce characters we have already spent billions of dollars to see in a host of different movies.  Iron Man (Downey), Thor (Hemsworth), Captain America (Evans), the Black Widow (Johansson), the Hulk (Ruffalo), and oh, what the hell, even Hawkeye (Renner) are battling it out over yet another one of the Infinity Stones that we've all been leading up to for the final films in the set.  We see the Infinity Stone retrieved by the team in the form of a scepter, and run into several new baddies, most notably Quicksilver (Taylor-Johnson) and the Scarlet Witch (Olson).  Once at this new compound, Iron Man wants to use the Infinity Stone to create world peace, but in the process creates an evil villain in the form of Ultron (Spader), whose idea of world peace is essentially destroying all life on earth so that machines and creatures of metal/data can rule the world.  His idea is to tear the Avengers apart in leading up to his armageddon, in hopes of beating them through this strategy, though as this is a superhero movie, after some soul-searching, the team eventually gets a final showdown with all of the Avengers taking on Ultron, a minor Avenger getting offed in the process, and the team seemingly breaking up...with them inevitably being called together at a later date once back-end residuals have been negotiated.

The film, like most action adventures, follows a pretty traditional format, and like the original picture it's at its most interesting when the film is fun, not heavy-handed.  The movies don't have the motif of DC when it comes to creating something harsh to cling onto, a tortured soul with the passion of a hero.  As a result, it's best when it's trying to be a little bit lighter.  I loved the entire sequence where everyone tries to lift Thor's hammer (and Captain America actually comes close), or whenever Captain America is called out for his aversion to profanity, or basically anything involving Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders is human perfection in this role).  Whenever it's clear they're having a good time I'm having a good time by proxy.  These are the Avengers, the World's Mightiest Heroes, and most people just can't come close to touching them, and both sides know it, so why not at least play with that in the process?  The second half of the film loses most of this amusement, and as a result is the lesser half of the film.

The movie is very hit-and-miss with both returning characters and introducing new ones.  Part of the problem here is that there are way too many characters-we can argue til we're blue-in-the-face about whom to cut, but with a dozen major actors playing significant roles in the film, and all of them with agents on speed-dial, it feels like we have too much posturing or moments where we need to see a specific character to set up a future film or a future angle of the Marvel universe.  Thor, for example, is woefully underused and off on his own adventure that we don't even see for the bulk of the film, clearly setting up Thor: Ragnarok but nothing much more in this film and he could have been lifted with ease.  The film has much more time for Hawkeye and the Black Widow, but the former gets into an annoyingly bad story (seriously-if there's a cliche for "I'm about to die" that they tried to throw in hopes of getting the audience to anticipate Hawkeye's death when clearly it was going to be the underwritten Quicksilver, I don't know what it could have been) and the latter gets downgraded in terms of a hero.  Did we really need that ridiculously uncomfortable sequence about her not being able to have children?  This is what makes her a "monster?"  This is her major failing as a human being-not having children?  The fact that this becomes such a key part for arguably the most significant female superhero in filmic history is a really massive misstep by Joss Whedon, who generally does very well with his female characters but makes the Black Widow a woman who can kick butt, but for some reason her entire story needs to deal with her lacking of a romantic relationship and a baby, and unlike the others, not her ambitions.  It was a HUGE step back from the places we took the character in the far superior film Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

The movie also has troubles with the villain.  Ultron initially seems like a really complicated character-one who seems to be doing evil accidentally as a byproduct of doing good (much like Robert Redford's character in Winter Soldier), but then descends into a simple "I'm a bad guy" veneer that becomes tiresome and boring.  His henchmen should be more complicated than they are, but the Scarlet Witch is insanely naive and Quicksilver just stands there and looks pretty.  Neither of them stands out, and Quicksilver is so unimportant to the plot that his death is mostly a "oh, I figured they'd do more with that" than a "wow, I can't believe it!"  About the only character that is new to the film that really resonated in a big way was Paul Bettany's Vision, who actually asks some big questions and seems pulled straight out of the comic books and not some bleached down version of what Marvel has created in print.

So I will admit at the end that I just didn't like this movie.  It has too many pleasurable elements not to state that it's still fun in the moment (Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Cobie Smulders remaining my favorite performances in the series), but overall it's less than the predecessor, which still pales in comparison to what the Captain America movies are doing.  I feel like I'm contributing to the problem with almost certainly seeing the next movie, but I might wait for reviews for it at least.  This is a movie that everyone's seen that I'm just giving a shoulder shrug.

OVP: Actor (2009)

OVP: Best Actor (2009)

The Nominees Were...

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

George Clooney, Up in the Air

Colin Firth, A Single Man

Morgan Freeman, Invictus

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

My Thoughts: We now move into the Big 4, and we’ll see if I continue my Academy-matching ways (we’ve yet to have all four of the acting winners match up with Oscar…and oddly enough I’ve yet to agree with the Academy in a lead race).  The men of 2009 are kind of titans of acting-all but one have picked up an Oscar, and he’s the youngest of the bunch so it could still happen.  In fact, since I’m always on the hunt for a segway and whom to start with, we’ll go with the guy still hunting for that first Oscar: Jeremy Renner.

Renner’s work as Sergeant First Class William James is the sort of acting that feels like an acquired taste.  There’s a dominant force in film criticism that seems to value this sort of he-man higher than most-the brooding tough guy, driven to the brink of madness (or perhaps over the edge into its abyss), operating within his own spiraling inferno.  To say this is Renner’s finest work is both obvious and insulting, since he’s never really done anything since that was remotely as important or as riveting.  I love the way that he interacts with himself in the film, the inner demons that he is constantly addressing.  Renner isn’t quite as good when he’s trying to find connections with his fellow actors-he falls far into clichéd machismo and male-bonding, but that’s not to say there isn’t something very worthwhile in what he’s doing.

Colin Firth also excels in his own personal demons in A Single Man.  A stylish gay period piece, the film is at first glance more about actors-as-props, but Firth finds something within his character that shows it’s more than the sum-of-its-parts, and brings that out in two of his key costars (a splashy and fabulous Julianne Moore and an unnervingly sexy Nic Hoult).  You don’t have to have him address his deeply inhibited sexuality to understand that he’s become a master of control, and this break in his life (the death of his partner) is a life-changing shot.  The vein of suicide runs through the film, but Firth’s performance is also informed with the sense of what-to-do-next.  That’s the real thing that frightens him, that his life could go on without his Jim.  I love the way that that’s the thing that starts to push Firth’s George toward the end of the film.  That combination of stuffy, period-informed repression and deeply conflicted emotion that he dare not speak of-that’s the stuff of great acting, and that’s what Firth is giving here (he, too, gives his best performance in this movie, and that’s a slightly more complimentary statement considering the breadth of his body of work).

I’m not quite sure if George Clooney is also doing career best (I really need to re-view Michael Clayton before we get into 2007), but his Ryan Bingham is definitely one of his ballsier creations.  I remember people talking about how Clooney plays himself in every movie, and in some ways that’s true (he’s frequently the dapper man-with-a-twinkle), but Ryan Bingham is an inverted, darker version of Clooney, and probably his ballsiest role choice to date.  In some ways he’s similar to George, in the way that he has to encounter a part of his life that he’s long since avoided, but here it’s his impending age.  Because that’s what rings through Up in the Air-the threat of missed opportunities.  Clooney makes his Ryan a man confident that he made the decisions he should have made, and yet smart enough to know when to drop his guard and self-assuredness.  There are no great epiphany moments like we’re used to in a movie with his mistress Alex, but Clooney knows to put them in the way he cuts words at her and restrains his face.  It’s a truly marvelous piece of work from an actor that, even in his over-celebrated current Academy state, doesn’t often get enough credit for his ability to escape into a role.

Jeff Bridges is an actor that is celebrated as a chameleon, however, and he gets to that point in Crazy Heart, where he plays yet another hang loose personality.  Bridges is one of those actors (in some similar ways to Brad Pitt) that makes relaxed look easy onscreen, and I think some people assume that’s the actor behind the performance.  However, there’s clearly an artistry in the way that he pushes Bad Blake through all of these scenes.  Most actors would have had his drinking seem over-the-top and exaggerated, but Bridges holds back in some scenes, only having his later moments, when he’s just slipping, be truly informed by the wild swings within his character.  Bridges understands that this is a man consumed by decades of alcohol, not just two hours worth, and doesn’t give us everything the character has been through.  He also finds a hope within the way that he sings, and pines for the dream career that has long since passed him by that is now given to the younger Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell…another actor who makes it all look easy).  Bridges is hampered by something that Clooney and Firth don’t have to deal with (he’s not in a good movie), but that doesn’t keep his Bad Blake down-being the best in his film doesn’t stop him from being one of the best of the year.

Finally, there’s Morgan Freeman in Invictus.  I feel I do myself a disservice by discussing this too harshly.  I mean, it’s perfect casting.  Morgan Freeman was born to play Nelson Mandela, and this is a film that had to be made.  I just wish he’d been given a better movie to do it in, to be honest.  Freeman hits all of the right notes, and though he does some of the things that people accuse George Clooney of (relying on his persona, which he does to help sell some of the schmaltzier moments in the script), there’s still an informed light behind his eyes.  I think there’s something to be said for being the right person for the right role at the right time, even if I don’t think this is as great as either Freeman or Eastwood could have delivered (the film relies too heavily on pushing the point of harmony and less on selling the actual script).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes found room for all but Renner in their lineup, skipping him in the drama race in favor of Tobey Maguire in Brothers (the Globes didn’t really go for The Hurt Locker), a nomination I don’t think anyone assumed was possible (Bridges won).  The Comedy/Musical nominees included Robert Downey Jr. for Sherlock Holmes (the winner), Daniel Day-Lewis in Nine, Matt Damon in The Informant!, Michael Stuhlberg in A Serious Man, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in (500) Days of Summer.  The SAG Awards found a carbon copy of the Oscar list, both in terms of nominees and the winners.  The BAFTA went to Colin Firth (country pride), and skipped Freeman (huh?) for Andy Serkis in Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll (double huh).  As far as sixth place, I have no clue.  This was clearly the list that was getting nominated (I would assume sixth place was extremely distant).  Perhaps Viggo Mortenson in The Road or Daniel Day-Lewis in Nine?  That’s my best bet.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: This is, all things considered, a very strong list, particularly considering the field.  I would have probably included Gordon-Levitt and I admittedly have never seen The Road, but there’s not a lot to quibble with.

Oscar’s Choice: Feeling the insane pressure to finally honor a well-respected industry veteran, Jeff Bridges took out George Clooney and Colin Firth, in that order.

My Choice: I’m going to go with Firth, with Clooney a closer-than-expected second.  I will put Bridges in third, followed by Renner, and then Freeman, though I don’t want that to sound like Freeman is last as I still think that was a worthwhile performance to be had.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you  with myself and Colin Firth, or the consensus around Bad Blake?  What are people’s thoughts on Invictus (since it missed the Best Picture race, this is our last shot with it)?  Who was 2009’s sixth place (I’m going with Day-Lewis, but would love to discuss others)?  And which man had the best lead actor performance of 2009?  Share in the comments below!

Also in 2009: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Feature, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2009

Past Best Actor Contests: 2010, 2011, 2012

OVP: American Hustle (2013)

Film: American Hustle (2013)

Stars: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner

Director: David O. Russell

Oscar History: 10 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Christian Bale, Actress-Amy Adams, Supporting Actor-Bradley Cooper, Supporting Actress-Jennifer Lawrence, Costume, Film Editing, Production Design, Original Screenplay)

(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

If you ever met me in real life (or have met me in real life), and were asked to describe me, the word “movies” would come up at least once within the first fifteen seconds.  I’ve actually tested this theory before with friends and family members.  If it’s not the first thing to come out of their mouth, it’s always there without a leading question.

So when the Oscar nominations were announced, like every year, I was asked my thoughts on it, but one question I didn’t exactly expect was, “why is American Hustle nominated?”  This is a film that has solid Oscar pedigree (all five of the leads have been nominated for or won an Oscar before), is from an award-winning director, and generally seems like a populist hit.  And yet people of the water cooler don’t seem to be buying it.  I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago (a few of our film reviews will not be my trademark “snap judgment” in the next week or so and I’ll note them as such), and here were my thoughts.

First of all, can we all just royally embrace the whole “sort of based on true events” before we get into the validity of the actual story?  I find the second that I see “based on a true story” in the opening titles of a movie that I’m instantly turned off-I mean, we already know that this movie will be based in logic and reality, that most of the story is already known to anyone with a newspaper and a Wikipedia binging habit, and therefore the “what will happen next?” element is gone from the film.  While they kept some of the more fact-based aspects of the story intact (such as the end result of multiple members of Congress being arrested), there were clear indulgences meant to make the film more entertaining and loose.

Since the bulk of you are familiar with the ABSCAM scandals, I won’t bore you with specifics on the plot (plus, my guess is most of you have actually already seen this film), but instead I’ll go to my opinion.  What I think most people are seeing as an issue with the film and its enormous ten Oscar nominations is that this film is hardly what one would consider remarkable.  Hustle has its moments (as do all David O. Russell films), but like all of his three recent Oscar hits (The Fighter, SLP, and this movie), it never seems to hit the “great” button very hard.

This is particularly true for this picture, which in my opinion is the weakest of the three.  The film has tonal problems throughout the movie-is it a winking comedy, is it a drama about lost dreams, is it simply a caper film with some random supporting scene-stealers?  No one can tell-the film feels disjointed, which makes the editing Oscar nomination probably the one that gives me the biggest headache.

The film’s acting, however, suffers pretty severely.  With that cast list, you know that it isn’t entirely the fault of the stars (though I’d like some confirmation that Jeremy Renner has remembered how to act after the glut of terrible he has unleashed on us in the last few years since The Town), but they aren’t doing themselves any favors.  Perhaps because they are relying so heavily on their very specifically tailored looks (with ten nominations, how the hell did the Makeup team, the most deserving aspect of the film, not get nominated?!?) the performances occasionally feel lazy.

Bale’s role as a down-on-his-luck conman lacks any sort of verve or spark or passion-it’s not just the character here-he’s a conman, he should be more enjoyable onscreen.  Compare his character and his personality with someone like Leo DiCaprio’s Jordan Belfort for a lesson in on-screen charisma and how important it is for an actor.  This is also true of Adams’ Sydney, though here we occasionally get glimpses behind the woman (like when she tells Cooper’s Richie she isn’t really English).  Adams few moments of intrigue, though, don’t make up for the fact that she’s fine, probably just below fine, and certainly not as good as someone like Adele Exarchopolous or Brie Larson from this past year.

And this is where reviewing a film like American Hustle gets royally tricky, because when you throw the concept of “Best of the Year” into the mix, you end up with a problem.  A film like Slumdog Millionaire or The King’s Speech or American Hustle is perfectly adequate, maybe occasionally good, but when you decide to make it compete for Hollywood’s top honor, you have to grade on a curve and in that case the movie just can’t compete. 

Even the most fascinating actors in the film (Cooper, and in particular Lawrence) both have troubles here.  This is partially because both of them are doing a pretty tight balancing act between scene-stealer and overpowering the entire film.  There is literally nothing you want to stare at more than Lawrence as a “neglected,” bored housewife who can manipulate her husband any way she pleases.  We don’t get any hint as to why these two were together in the first place, why someone so young is with Bale and has an elementary school-age son, or why he’s abandoning her for Adams’ Sydney.  It’s hard to care much when Lawrence is actually onscreen, as she’s pure movie star dynamite in the role (and that’s something to be damn impressed by-aside from Best Makeup, she’d be the only other element of the film I would nominate for an Oscar, and in the end I might decide it deserved to win both), but her character is adrift in Russell’s narrative.

And that’s perhaps the worst part about American Hustle-there are WAY too many plot holes to fill.  Russell is too intent on giving us hair and movie stars and fun to actually string together a cohesive movie with sense and reason.  The movie would be forgiven all of this (movie stars and crazy makeup ARE fun), but then they decided to give it a bunch of shiny statues and we had to take it seriously.  And this movie cannot withstand the pressure.

OVP: Supporting Actor (2010)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2010)

The Nominees Were...

Christian Bale, The Fighter

John Hawkes, Winter's Bone

Jeremy Renner, The Town

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are Alright

Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech

My Thoughts: And now we enter the Big Six Oscar categories.  We proceed into this category with a fairly typical lineup of supporting actors: a leading man slumming it in Best Supporting Actor (though he's arguably in the wrong category), an afterglow nomination for a recently discovered talent, a longtime character actor finally getting a role that matches his talent, an Indy actor getting a random nomination when he should be on number three, and a former winner.

I remember seeing John Hawkes in a play when I was a kid-he was native to near my hometown, and I was star-struck, despite him being just a bit player in Hollywood at the time.  Ten years later, he managed to win the character actor lottery and got a beautiful part in a movie that got him all the way to the Oscars.

The performance is exquisite, in a film that improves dramatically with time.  Hawkes knows the difference between what his character is saying and what he's doing-I love the way that he spends so much of the film warning Ree to stay away, to not get interested in what her father is doing, and then he largely does the opposite, helping her along the way and finding himself in trouble as a result.  Hawkes has such a gravel-y, decayed aspect to his movements, rundown from years of overwork and drugs, and yet has enough wit and nerve in him to prove that there's a reason he's survived all of these years in this hellish Ozark wilderness.

Jeremy Renner doesn't have the same connection with his manic bank robber that Hawkes does.  There is a strong chemistry that he has with Affleck's character; he gets that the friendship that they currently enjoy is out of comfort and obligation, not out of any sort of continued love or residing admiration.  Renner, however, doesn't have the restraint that Hawkes does, at least not in this particular role.  His performance oftentimes pushes a little too much into scenery-chewing villain, and as he becomes more and more unhinged, the performance shows less and less restraint.  He's the best thing about the movie, but that isn't saying a whole lot as there's nothing as eye-catching as him in the film, even if he's over-the-top.  Renner, since his critically-acclaimed two-year, two-nomination run in 2009/10 has gone the way of Nicolas Cage-blockbuster after blockbuster (some good, some Gone in 60 Seconds level), and I'm starting to worry that he, like Cage, is gone for good from quality films.  He's still got killer arms though.

Mark Ruffalo is an actor that I have loved for such a long time, to finally see him in an Oscar lineup is a treat, as I'd be on my third nomination for him by now.  His work as Terry in You Can Count on Me is one of those performances I watch over-and-over, marveling at its brilliance and the way he makes a thoroughly unlikable guy seem so appealing.  Seven years later, he would be just as wonderful as the tired, increasingly lost detective he played in Zodiac (a film that hardly anyone remembers anymore, and they should, as it's a billion times superior to David Fincher's latest serial killer film Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).

In this film, however, he ditches the detective and goes back to the laid-back, "whatever" bohemian we know him to be from other roles.  Ruffalo nails the initial reactions to the idea that he has kids-a springy mix of intrigue and reluctance, with intrigue winning over, of course (honestly, if you're in his shoes and discover you have a child, you want to meet them regardless of how surprised you are they may exist).  He also gives such realistic pain in the film's final scenes, as he pleads to be back in the children's lives.  He understands at that point where his road has been leading, and knows that he has been given a rare opportunity into this world that he was never meant to be a part of, and has wasted the relationship with the only children he'll ever really have.  Ruffalo's vocal cracks, the way he just sort of mumbles out his off-the-cuff responses-it's a hipster vocal intonation that only a seasoned character actor could pull off so well.

These three were likely just afterthoughts when it came to actual Oscar voting, as the obvious first and second places were filled by the final two men, both of whom one could argue were the lead, rather than supporting, actors in their films.  For Christian Bale, this nomination was a longtime coming.  After years of manic weight gains, cult followings (someday I will understand why every straight guy I was friends with in college wanted to grow up to be Patrick Bateman, but probably not today), and critical acclaim, he finally got a role that could combine both his transformative sensibilities with a film that was friendly enough for Oscar to latch onto it.

Bale is a good actor, but I never really loved him in this role specifically.  I found the scenes to calculating, too click-click-click.  He always seems to be Christian Bale playing Dicky, and not Dicky himself.  The way that he persistently flies off the handle, has entered into a state of delusion, it seems like he's working too hard to underline, bold, and exclamation point all of the tics of the character.  I think that Bale is better when he's subtler, and this role, while no one was ever going to play it subtle, would gain so much from making it harder for Mickey to disown his brother.  The screenplay makes him stretch it on and on, but as an audience we have trouble connecting so much that we believe that Mickey would struggle with the decision.  Family is family, but Bale's Dicky doesn't have the intoxicating magnetism or the overpowering moxie, that, say Melissa Leo's Alice does, and so I never quite bought his character in the way that I bought Leo's.

Unlike Bale, Geoffrey Rush has never had difficulty getting noticed by the Oscars.  Though he won his first Oscar as a leading actor, most of his best work is at the sidelines, spouting off bon mots and clever observations with the flare of a late-career John Gielgud (can't you just imagine him in this role with Richard Burton as King George?).  This is what fits him best-too much Geoffrey Rush is definitely a thing, and his scenery-eating ways often get in the way of the best moments of his performances.  He's actually far more appropriate in a film like Pirates of the Caribbean, where overacting is a good thing, than he is in costume dramas, where his loud, swinging work is a bit outlandish for the surroundings.  The overacting doesn't grind the way that Bale's does, to the point where you wonder why anyone would put up with him (they have vastly different character arcs as well, which helps), but it doesn't ring as a performance that merited inclusion in such a field.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes found room for both Andrew Garfield in The Social Network and in a clear case of celebrity-loving, Michael Douglas in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, keepin Mark Ruffalo and John Hawkes out of the final five (Christian Bale was the victor).  The SAG Awards were actually a carbon copy of the Oscars (the only category they did that in in 2010), and also went with Bale as the winner.  Finally, the BAFTA Awards, generally favoring British actors, only had room for one American: Mark Ruffalo, cutting both Jeremy Renner and John Hawkes in favor of Andrew Garfield (almost certainly the sixth place in the field) and Renner's costar, the late Pete Postelthwaite.  The King's Speech was an unstoppable force at the BAFTA's that year, and so it carried Geoffrey Rush along for the ride.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Supporting Actor is always the field I get the most disgusted with Oscar.  They typically will pick at least one of my best of the year, but Geoffrey Rush, Jeremy Renner, and I'm sorry, even Christian Bale are all fairly lazy "inside-the-box" picks in my opinion.  They're not bad, but they just aren't up to the level of some of the best work of the year.  It's partially because the category is surprisingly ageist, ruling out younger performances (it's odd because Supporting Actress almost gets to the point where they nominate too many younger performers).  Miles Teller, for example, may be in his screen debut, but his work in Rabbit Hole as a young man trying to come to terms with how he accidentally killed a little boy with his car, is a complicated role that he still manages to pull off in a way few veteran actors could even find success.  Even better is the dual roles that Andrew Garfield acted in Never Let Me Go and The Social Network.  I've struggled to figure out which one I like better, but I think it'd have to be the privileged, short-changed Eduardo that tops the doomed, lovelorn Tommy.  Whichever one you go with, it's hard to imagine how Oscar felt it appropriate not to include him in some capacity-his combined work is easily the best of the year for this category, and a great star-is-born turn for the future Spider-Man.
Oscar's Choice: Oscar made the relatively easy choice of honoring the never-nominated Bale over the already-winning Geoffrey Rush.  The better question for everyone was who was in third (my guess would be Hawkes, but that's based on nothing but intuition).

My Choice: It's a tough call between Hawkes and Ruffalo, tougher than I figured it would be when I started writing this piece, but I'm going to go with my initial gut choice of Ruffalo.  His character is tougher to pull off, and the blending of comedy with the dramatic makes me check my box for him.  In third would be Rush, followed by Bale, and finally Renner.

How about you-were you absolutely behind Christian Bale, or did you like me think the performance was overrated?  If you did, who was your choice for the big trophy?  Which performance was in third place (I'd love an argument on that one, as I'm at a loss for who would be the guess)?  And which Andrew Garfield performance was the superior?  Comment away!

Also in 2010: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2010

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2011