OVP: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)

Film: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)
Stars: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Cate Blanchett, Craig Ferguson, F. Murray Abraham, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Kristen Wiig, Gerard Butler, Kit Harington
Director: Dean DeBlois
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

We complete (for the love of god, end stories animated studios!) the How to Train trilogy this year with a lot of mixed expectations on my part.  I loved the first one, thought it was spellbinding entertainment, while the second film I actively disliked, thinking the plot was manipulative & sacrificed a lot of cool story potential.  I make it a point of not seeing the sequels to movies I didn't like, but made an exception here as I had heard from my parents that this was really good, and pretty much everyone who disliked the second film agreed that this was a return-to-form.  Plus, considering the state of this year's sequel-plagued Animated Feature race, this felt like preemptively getting a movie off of the OVP.  So (hungry for a movie after a week or two away), I snuck to the cinema to judge-would this film be similar to the first film, a surprise delight, or would it fall into the critically-acclaimed (except by me) camp of the sequel?

(Spoilers Ahead) We pickup a year after the previous film's events, where Hiccup (Baruchel) has become the chief and Toothless, his sidekick dragon, is now the "alpha" basically controlling all of the other dragons with his mind.  As you might have remembered (if you clicked the above links), I hated this plot line, and was glad to see it largely back-seated in the movie, with Toothless's pursuits focusing more on gaining a romantic partner, when a beautiful "Light Fury" comes across his path.  However, romance is interrupted when a famed dragon-slayer Grimmel (Abraham) tries to kill and capture all of the dragons, including wanting to hunt the night furies to extinction.  We watch as Hiccup tries to bring his clan to the "Hidden World" a place run by dragons where they can live in peace.  As the film unfolds, we learn that while the vikings cannot live there, the dragons soon must as they will all surely die because Grimmel will inevitably be replaced with another violent man soon after his defeat, and the world isn't ready for the splendor of the dragons.

The movie is considerably grander-in-scale than its previous films, and honestly, is probably the best in the series (I haven't seen the first one in a while, but I don't remember it hitting these kinds of heights).  The animation is prettier than any mainstream studio has come up with this decade other than Coco, with majestic rides through the night sky and a symphony of dragons in the Hidden World.  I made a comment that the last film would have been better as a silent movie, and I remembered thinking that this one would totally work as a silent movie as well.  If the film ends up being a capper at the Oscars, getting a trophy as a nod to all that it's accomplished as a series over the past decade, we can at least rest assured that it will be winning while also being a splendid picture.

Thankfully it isn't silent, though, as we get some of the most meaningful plots of the series.  The environmentalism answer is clearly there, with dragons being an easy substitute for the rainforest or tigers or pandas or name your favorite climate change cause here, but it also shows the stakes in a major way.  Yes, Hiccup gets to see Toothless again over the ending (I could have done without the literal realization of the reunion, rather than just assuming it as a promise), but the dragons leave this world forever, and the world is hollow because of the greed of people like Grimmel.  That's a sort of "you can have your cake, but you can't eat it" sort of mentality that has largely been absent from modern animation, hearkening back to the era of Pinocchio or Bambi in a way.  I loved it, and think Disney should be watching its back because they haven't made a sequel this inventive in a decade despite sequels being pretty much all they're capable of making.  I'm going with 4 stars here, as the side character jokes still don't work for me and I feel everyone other than Hiccup and the plot itself are underwritten, but know that the franchise is totally redeemed in my eyes, and well done to Dreamworks for making something so special and (hopefully) ending it with such care.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019)

Film: The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019)
Stars: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Tiffany Haddish, Stephanie Beatriz, Charlie Day, Alison Brie, Nick Offerman, Jason Sand, Brooklynn Prince, Maya Rudolph, Will Farrell, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Cobie Smulders, Ralph Fiennes, Bruce Willis...it's a lot of cast
Director: Mike Mitchell
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

When the first Lego Movie came out five years ago, it felt like an unexpected phenomenon.  Buoyed by a not-yet-ubiquitous Chris Pratt, the John Everyman of Emmet as the main character in a film with a metric ton of site gags and inside jokes toward the Lego Culture was a genuinely good movie, as much an awesome commercial as it was a relentless pop culture orgy.  Since then, we've actually had two more installments in the series, with the equally as good The Lego Batman Movie, and then the first misfire in the series The Lego Ninjago Movie (full disclosure: I haven't seen this picture yet, so the "misfire" label is based on box office/critical consensus and not my own personal estimation).  As a result, The Lego Movie 2 arrives really as the fourth film in the series, and with weightier expectations about what it can accomplish compared to the first film in the series.  The movie falls in the middle of those expectations, still clever in its moments, but weighted down by knowing it could be better and with gags that fall flat as often as they soar.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie picks up a few seconds after the events of the previous movie, with a war of sorts breaking out between the Duplos in the last moments of the first film, and then over the next few years we see the destruction of the Legos' world at the hands of the Duplos, repeatedly destroying their cities.  This results in a sort of Mad Max-style dystopia where Lucy (Banks) takes on the role of Max, and is perplexed why Emmet (Pratt) seems to act as if nothing has changed.  One day a mysterious masked stranger (Beatriz) comes to their city, and steals away a number of the characters, including Batman (Arnett), Benny (Day), Unikitty (Brie), and Lucy.  Emmet tries to track them down, and eventually finds a mysterious city with a potentially duplicitous shape-shifting Queen (Haddish) presiding.

The film, before I get to the bad, is super cute at parts.  The overall song score is considerably better than the first film, in my opinion, though I doubt they get the cultural cache of "Everything is Awesome."  You will almost certainly be adding "Catchy Song" to your iPhone, and Tiffany Haddish nails her evil villain number (even though, it turns out, she's not an evil villain), and in my opinion steals the movie out-from-under everyone around her.  There are a few site gags that are really strong, mostly surrounding Haddish's shape-shifting Queen, and some of the previous film's characters, like Arnett's Batman, remain hilarious.

So why am I just "meh" about the film?  Honestly, it's because the story itself is a bit of a drag. Unlike the first movie, there's no surprise about the real-world here.  We know the real-world exists, and it's pretty obvious to anyone over the age of seven that our main character has a baby sister who is trying to befriend him by copying his favorite hobby of legos.  This sentimentality is so omnipresent that it makes The Lego Movie 2 feel less like a film and more like a proper commercial: "see, the whole family can unite with Legos!"  This might be naive, but if I'm going to be forced to watch product placement, I want it to feel fresh.  It doesn't help that Banks & Pratt have become near-constant presences at the movies in the past few years, and since neither seem to change up their schtick, this is something we've already seen even when its new.  Tiffany Haddish is at risk for this in the future, but at least she hasn't done a G-Rated version of her screen persona yet so the Queen is a new element to this universe, something sorely lacking in the rest of the movie.  It's possible from the box office that this may be the final installment of the Lego franchise, or at least the last one that features Emmet & Lucy-if this is the best they can come up with, perhaps that's a good thing.

OVP: Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Film: Hail, Caesar! (2016)
Stars: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, Scarlett Johansson, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Production Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I never quite know whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing when I spend an entire movie just thinking about another movie, but for some reason throughout the entirety of Hail, Caesar! I couldn't help but recall select scenes of Roger Altman's excellent The Player while watching the newer film.  Both pictures skewer the idea of celebrity by using actual celebrities onscreen, though in the case of Altman the celebrities are frequently playing themselves while here they are playing versions of classic celebrities.  Still, it's a fun bit of tongue-in-cheek, and while the film lacks the wicked observation of Fargo and the overall brilliance of No Country for Old Men holding any director to the standards of such a high bar is probably unfair.  Hail, Caesar! is a fun movie, one that occasionally even tries to veer into greatness, that is anchored by being more a lovely string of vignettes than an overall cohesive picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) What I mean there is that the film itself is more focused and at its best when it is skewering Old Hollywood and our romance with it.  It's not new to present select old movie stars as being real-we've been seeing that since A Star is Born, but it's not common to see the actual movies themselves come across as rather, well, awful, but that's true here.  The films that onscreen stars like Clooney, ScarJo, Tatum, Fiennes, and Ehrenreich are all making are clearly spoofing on the classic films of people like Charlton Heston, Esther Williams, Gene Kelly, George Cukor, and Roy Rogers, respectively, but not the better parts of their filmographies as all of those movies look, well, awful.  The film is supremely capable in its knowledge of old Hollywood, particularly since main character Eddie Mannix (Brolin) was actually based on a real-life "fixer" named Eddie Mannix who would cover-up stories of major Hollywood stars back in the 1940's and 50's.

These moments are great, and comedically fun set-pieces.  I think my favorite was Channing Tatum's Burt Gurney, who sings a tune about wanting dames to come into his bar and how he'll be stuck at sea without any women, but then proceeds to go into a deeply homosexual song-and-dance number that actually ends up turning the bar into a gay bar and has him being thrusted against by two backup dancers.  In a tongue-in-cheek wink to the many gay men who were paraded as straight during the period, Gurney is himself gay in real-life, but also in a twist defecting to the Russians and being aided by a team of screenwriters who are all Communist-sympathizers.  Coming in second to this hilarious comedic subplot for me was Scarlett Johansson, angelic in one of those ridiculously over-the-top water ballets that they always put in Esther Williams movies, playing a fast-talking broad offscreen, and they create an elaborate hoax to cover her pregnancy (in many ways mirroring the scandal involving Loretta Young and Clark Gable)-Johansson, who is so good so often these days as to be taken for granted, is fun in an underwritten part.

It's fun just to name-check all of these old and new movie star names, but the larger question is if the film is actually any good, and it is, but never really rising above that adjective.  Most of the film gains from its homages to old Hollywood, and really only the scenes with Ehrenreich, who clearly stands out as the only non-famous star of that cast list up-top, pop for me, perhaps because he's an unknown and I wasn't expecting him to be so wonderfully eager and charming.  He's a delight as a young, popular cowboy star who is hoping to prove that he has slightly more acting chops than the B-movie pictures that he has become famous for; Ehrenreich is terrific in this role, and I'm hoping gets more exposure after this film.  Otherwise the film probably juggles one too many plots (the entire George Clooney sequence feels largely unnecessary and like a side gag that's just there to prove that this is the quirky Coen Brothers behind the camera), and though it works in terms of watchability, it's nothing more than a passing fancy from two directors who have made films that will stay with you always.  Still, all-in-all it's a lot of fun.

Those are my thoughts on Hail, Caesar!, one of several films I've caught in the last week (we're also getting back in the swing of daily reviews on TMROJ) that we'll be discussing.  For those of you who saw this (and it was a pretty big hit all things considered, so I'm guessing that's quite a few of you)-what were your thoughts?  Did you enjoy the Old Hollywood homages, or were you leaving disappointed that it didn't have the cerebral ticks of something like A Serious Man?  Share your thoughts below!

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem!

Jonah made it last year without HFPA or SAG...
who will do it this year?

Each year the alarms are sounded by Oscar pundits that "so-and-so" is out of the Oscar race due to them missing at either the SAG Awards or the Globes, and these warnings are not without merit.  The reality is that in this heavily publicized Oscar season more-and-more surprises are shut out each year as the Oscars voters rely heavily on what the press is saying to fill out their ballots.

And yet, each year there is always at least one candidate that manages to sail on through and grab a nomination without a public blessing from SAG or the HFPA.  In the past ten years, only one year (2006) didn't end up choosing an entirely new name to add to the festivities.  Below are a list of the candidates that were new to the night in their years:

2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emannuelle Riva, Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman and Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
2008: Michael Shannon
2007: Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones
2006: Zero (let's pay attention people-we've already been over this)
2005: William Hurt
2004: Alan Alda and Clint Eastwood

As you can see, it helps a LOT to be in a film that people are already watching.  Over half of these people were in Best Picture nominees, and Tommy Lee Jones is the only contender that was his film's sole nomination (and lest we forget, he was headlining the Best Picture winner that year), so keep that in mind if you're, say, cheering for someone like Hilary Swank to still make the cut.

As this is an Oscar-oriented site, I figured it would be worthwhile to investigate which performances this year are most likely to make this list.  Below you will find the Top 10 performances ignored by HFPA and SAG that may still wind up with an Oscar nomination:

10. Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars)

For Her: Woodley has had a major blockbuster moment this year, and that's impossible to deny.  On the heels of kicking off a new franchise with Divergent, she somehow made an even MORE successful hit with The Fault in Our Stars.  The Best Actress field is starting to close, but not so much that the door is shut, and Hollywood has clearly noticed that they got a new movie star this year.  They may want to reward that on their ballots.  Plus, a character with cancer is always a strong hook with Oscar.
Against Her: Woodley should have been able to score at the Globes.  Her newfound fame and red carpet looks are surely something that HFPA would latch onto before AMPAS, and this film already has some major debits (summer film, going for a sole nomination, teen drama).  She needed her name to be a bit more prominent in the game before the year began (in a similar way that Aniston needed to have some precursor love to stay in the conversation).

9. Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice)

For Him: I'm not counting if you received a BFCA nomination for two reasons for the purposes of this article.  One, because they have six-wide fields and that's just cheating, and two, the BFCA's irk me something fierce (they always talk about how much they "predict" the Oscars rather than honoring a specific film or actor for their work-we have hundreds of Oscar pundits, if you have your own televised awards show, you should have your own opinions and not give a damn about the Oscars).  This is all to say that I'm aware Brolin made a big jump in the conversation with a BFCA (or Critics Choice, if you would) nomination, and that's part of why I'm featuring him here.  The other part is that despite the lack of buzz this film has attracted, Brolin has been on everyone's favorite list from the cast, and as a former Oscar nominee, he's not that much of a stretch to make it without too much press.
Against Him: This race looks very set, and when that happens, cracks in the wall usually happen by way of a Best Picture frontrunner, which Inherent Vice decidedly is not.  Brolin also has missed just as often as he was nominated with Oscar-his only nomination was the one that they "had" to give him for Milk and not something optional like No Country for Old Men.

8. Rene Russo (Nightcrawler)

For Her: It's hard to imagine anyone seeing Nightcrawler for Gyllenhaal and not coming out equally as impressed with Russo.  There's some precedent here-Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock, for example, or Toni Collette in The Sixth Sense.  You come for one performance and decide to put two on your ballot.  The big name of the game with these sorts of citations is that you have to be seen, and Russo will be.  Plus, Oscar loves a comeback and after years of random wallpaper roles like Thor's mom, Russo is clearly having a moment.
Against Her: If Jake is scoring everywhere, why isn't she?  How is it that Tilda Swinton, for example, managed the sixth BFCA slot for a very autre-film when the prediction-loving body may have gone with something a bit more likely such as Russo?  Keep in mind every year we have random supporting performances in major films that inexplicably get no traction, despite being superb (see Sarah Paulson last year).

7. Tim Roth (Selma)

For Him: Speaking of comebacks, Roth, a veteran character actor, managed to nab a nomination 19 years ago for Rob Roy, but hasn't been back since.  This year he plays a villain (great for supporting actor) and a real-life person (Gov. George Wallace), both of which could make him a stealth nominee if Selma continues to grab heat.
Against Him: I mean, all of these people have trouble because they don't have enough precursor love, but with Roth it means something more because there's less room to up-jump his costar Tom Wilkinson, who has a bigger part and a more recent history with Oscar.

6. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)

For Him: It helps that AMPAS clearly adores him (back-to-back nominations), and though the Best Actor field is likely a six-man race, it's a pretty even six-man race, which means that there could be a candidate that's just barely missing like Cooper.  If he gets an uptick in Clint support from the Academy (they do love them some Mr. Eastwood), I wouldn't be stunned if he's that candidate.
Against Him: American Sniper hasn't registered at all this awards season (the NBR doesn't count), and critics haven't been rallying around it (have critics even seen the movie?!?).  Could this be another J Edgar (and even that film managed precursors)?

5. Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner)

For Him: The other stealth Best Actor nominee, Spall has done well this season.  He scored a major prize at Cannes and followed it with a significant prize at the NYFCC Awards, which are historically very strong at predicting Oscar nominees.  Once-upon-a-time Mike Leigh had the magic touch with getting Oscar nominations for his performers.  If this film is gaining (my predictions indicate that it might be), this isn't out of the question.
Against Him: Leigh has never been good at getting nominations for his male actors (he's never actually done it-not even with Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy) and the NYFCC is hardly a strong benchmark when you realize that last year's winner was Robert Redford.

4. Laura Dern (Wild)

For Her: She's clearly beloved (did you see that Hollywood Reporter interview-it was just a giant Laura Dern love-in), and this is the sort of role that Hollywood notices (woman dying of cancer, inspiring her daughter-I mean, come on).  She's been working the circuit hard, and it'd be a nice recognition for both her incredible post-Rambling Rose career and her dad's recent resurgence.
Against Her: Why didn't she get in with the Globes, and in general-what is up with the reaction to Wild?  Is it frustration that no one can actually watch the movie?  Is it the odd prejudice that awards bodies have to female-driven stories?  Or is it just that after Into the Wild and 127 Hours that voters are tired of seeing beautiful people traipse through the wilderness?  Whatever the reason, Dern clearly isn't striking the chord she thought she would.

3. Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)

For Her: The BFCA is getting name-checked more in this article than it has been in years on this blog, but let's not forget that when the field went six-wide, she was the one that benefited.  Cotillard has been on a roll all year, with two major films in tow and this is a critically-acclaimed film.  The pundits seem to be rallying for her, and there's a lot of support there.  And let's face it here-she's due for a second nomination after all of the strong work she's done since La Vie en Rose (arguably stronger than that initial role!).
Against Her: It's hard to make it for foreign films (she knows this more than anyone) and for some reason (the Cate Blanchett curse?) she hasn't been able to score since her win.  Plus, this year she has The Immigrant potentially taking away crucial votes from herself, which may matter in a tight race.

2. Carmen Ejogo (Selma)

For Her: Ejogo isn't a household name, but she's playing one.  Coretta Scott King, as a long-suffering wife of a hero, is the exact sort of role that the Oscars usually gravitate toward in Supporting Actress.  You could hardly describe Jessica Chastain as particularly safe, and if the Academy responds well to Selma (this appears to be the most important question of Oscar season right now, doesn't it-what does AMPAS think of Selma?) she could make it via Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook.
Against Her: She's not a household name-will people remember her without a stronger push?  Plus, from what I've heard this isn't a particularly meaty part (though that hasn't stopped them before...see also Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook).

1. Tom Wilkinson (Selma)

For Him: Playing a real-life person?  Check.  Meaty role in a Best Picture frontrunner?  Check.  Former nominee that hasn't won yet, but is clearly recognizable for AMPAS voters?  Check (twice-2001 and 2007).  Category that is perceived as weak due to the winner being a foregone conclusion so someone could sneak in at the last minute?  Check.  Clearly there's a reason I put Wilkinson at Number One.
Against Him: About the only thing going against Wilkinson is that he's missed with SAG and the Globes (particularly with the Globes, since they saw Selma) and that he's battling some very popular former nominees in Mark Ruffalo and Robert Duvall.  Otherwise, I'd say this is easily the most likely of these ten to make it, and could well be considered a favorite depending on how Duvall's chances in particular play out.

And those are the ten-what do you think?  Who has the best chances of the ten?  Do you agree with the lineup or should someone like Tilda Swinton or Hilary Swank still be in the conversation?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Supporting Actor (2013)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2013)

The Nominees Were...

Barkhad Abdi, Captain Phillips

Bradley Cooper, American Hustle

Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave

Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street

Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club

My Thoughts: And finally, we move into the actors of the 2013 Oscars, the twenty men and women who actually get face-time during the ceremony and the audience pays attention to their speeches rather than taking it as a moment to play Candy Crush.  As a result, I hope you have some opinions that you share in the comments.  Either way, though, it’s time to start perusing the stars.

I’m going to start out with the man who actually won the trophy, Jared Leto.  Leto is one of those actors who sort of felt like he’s underperformed in his career.  His weird obsession with both his second career as a musician and his bizarre issues with losing and gaining weight for every role he does (seriously-can’t we just hand that back to the makeup department?!?) has made us sort of forget that he was once a very promising actor, and this year was sort of a way to give an honor to what could have been a much stronger career (think of what would happen if Edward Norton made good once again…oh wait, that’s likely happening this year with Birdman).

Leto’s performance, though, left me completely cold.  I think that more than any of the four winning performances this one felt the most over-praised.  I think there was an admiration for the weight loss and his willingness to step into a character so unlike him, but Rayon is not a particularly compelling character.  The entire performance felt two-dimensional: we see him strut around and inject himself with drugs that are going to kill him, but we get little indication of what sort of person he used to be.  We have to fill-in-the-blanks, which is fine for a normal movie (you can’t rely on every supporting part to have a back story), but when you’re handing out an Oscar for it, there shouldn’t be room for errors.  Even the big reveal scene, where he dresses like a man and is clearly deeply uncomfortable doesn’t resonate because instead of using the scene to learn a bit more about Rayon, it’s just a giant middle finger to his father-nothing more than audience-pandering, rather than character-building.  This felt cheap, and this performance felt gimmicky, and I wasn’t into it at all.

I felt the same way about Barkhad Abdi in Captain Phillips.  This is a performance that gets more points from people, in my opinion, because of the story behind the actor than the actual work.  We see that it’s his film debut, that he was a cab driver in the Twin Cities, and then he made it all the way to the Oscars.  Every year there’s someone who manages to sell this plot to the media, and it’s a pretty exciting one (who wouldn’t want to think that a year from now you too could be at the Oscars?!?).  And yet, I just wasn’t feeling this performance at all-you could see too much of the “acting,” the quick switches in his emotions.  It doesn’t help that he’s competing against Tom Hanks, who hasn’t been this rich onscreen in years and is giving us deep, harsh, and complex emotions to observe in the film’s second act, but in comparison Abdi is just serviceable, and his character’s weirdly alternating motives took me out of his part entirely.

Michael Fassbender was the other actor who had a shot at “the win” (though really, Leto had that thing locked up the moment he took the stage at the Globes), and here is a man who genuinely understood his violent and evil character.  You see in Master Epps a bizarre mix of emotions, always bubbling to the surface.  He’s driven by hatred and lust, frequently dismissing anyone else but himself as a human being, as he has been given little by the outside world in terms of stature, so he must rely on his cruelty to Patsey and Solomon (and to some extent, his wife) to assert his dominance.  Fassbender gets the showiest role of the three (actually, scratch that-Leto does), but he also finds shades in his character, making him just human enough to be frightening (you can tell that he cannot explain his fascination and desire for Patsey, and this lack of knowledge consumes his rage toward her), but still never relenting in the horror that he brings to everyone onscreen.  It’s a brilliant piece of acting from perhaps the finest actor of his generation, and it’s about time that Oscar took notice.

Coming in after these three are two actors that I never would have pegged as future Oscar nominees, much less two-time Oscar nominees: Bradley Cooper and Jonah Hill.  Both men have had the good sense to balance their continued franchises and fame with smaller parts in prestigious films.  It helps that there’s clearly a desire by both men to be taken seriously as actors.  This helps since both are more than willing to take supporting parts in films, even though they are at the stature where they could demand to always be in the lead.  Of the two, Cooper is probably slightly better.  I loved the direction that he took his idiotic Richie, never letting up on the big fish in the little pond act.  It’s still Bradley Cooper, and so you find (like the scene with him in the bathroom of the nightclub) that there’s a desire there that you would want to succumb to, but Cooper is smart enough to balance his good looks (not dampening them through heavy makeup) with making his character abrasive, so it’s still believable that Amy Adams will eventually betray him.  I loved the way that he also changes his personality when he thinks he can impress or be in charge-that’s devotion to the bit, and yet another sign that Cooper is one to watch in the years to come.

While I was pretty much onboard with Bradley Cooper’s first Oscar nomination, I was less enthralled with Hill’s work in Moneyball, which I thought was pretty much a “ooh, he’s a big star going dramatic!” citation, rather than a nomination that was merited.  That being said, this is considerably better, as Hill proves once and for all that he has chops.  I love the way that his character in some ways mirrors Fassy’s Master Epps-they’re both men that are pretty rotten to the core, and not someone to emulate at all, but they both have shades of humanity.  With Hill, he needs to establish that his character isn’t just a vapid, soulless corporate lackey, which he does not through kindness, but instead through fear and trust in the only person he sees as more than a vessel to corrupt.  This isn’t a particularly easy part to play without totally blowing into a lack of realism, and Hill manages to play that well through most of the movie.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were largely similar to the Oscars, snubbing Hill for Daniel Bruhl in Rush (clearly the sixth place), and also starting the gravy train for Jared Leto to pick up every award under the sun.  The SAG Awards also honored Leto, but made room for Bruhl and James Gandolfini in Enough Said by skipping Hill and Cooper.  Finally, the BAFTA Awards kind of went their own way with the year, bizarrely missing Leto and Hill (Abdi ended up winning), with Matt Damon in Behind the Candelabra and once again Bruhl scoring nominations.  All-in-all, I kind of get why Bruhl was snubbed (the smaller film, not pushing as hard for it as Hill), but this is one of those extremely rare circumstances where you score every precursor and still cannot make the cut (I’ve never seen Rush-should I?)

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I get why certain performances didn’t get cited (I’m looking at you John Gallagher, Jr.), but seriously-what was the Academy’s problem with the supporting men of Saving Mr. Banks?  Best Actress seemed like a category where there were six contenders and you just had to cut one, but Tom Hanks is an Academy favorite, playing a recognizable real-life person, and is terrific in it-where’s the citation for that?  Ditto Colin Farrell, who continues to get better and better, playing a man who is watching his daughter’s opinion of him crumbling amidst his alcohol and decay.  These are great pieces of acting, and both should have been cited.  The fact that neither did is, well, criminal.

Oscar’s Choice: They cannot avoid a gimmick or a co-lead, and Jared Leto had both, so he takes the trophy.

My Choice: Definitely Fassbender-he’s kind of in a class by himself here.  Cooper, Hill, Leto, and finally Abdi follow behind.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you agree with the Academy in celebrating Leto’s finally delivering on his promise, or are you more in the Fassy camp with me?  Who gets to a third nod first-Cooper or Hill?  What does Barkhad Abdi’s career hold in store?  And who was the best supporting actor on 2013?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2013: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score,  Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2013

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Top Ten: Who Should Host the Oscars?

This is a risky post to write this time of year-I was actually almost done with a Kennedy Center Honors predictions list, and then they actually shared who the winners were, making my article a bit moot (I did tackle the Life Achievement Award honors in a slightly different way here).  This may well be the case with the Oscars' host, as the producers have already been announced so it may be only a matter of time before we get to the actual main event.

Still, though, this is about that time of year where everyone starts throwing the names of every comedian, actor, and talk show host under the sun, and I figured I'd pipe in with my two cents in this regard.  Below you will find my top ten theoretical hosts (and co-hosts) that should host this year's Academy Awards.

Note Before We Begin: Tina and Amy are doing the Golden Globes.  We all want them to host the Oscars.  It's not happening until their contract is done with the Globes.  Let it go people.

Another Note Before We Begin: There are four obvious names that could go below that I'm not going to put.  Justin Timberlake is a terrible actor, and hasn't earned the right to host the Oscars yet (and really, who would want that smugness for three hours?).  Neil Patrick Harris can act, but he tends to make the ceremony too much about himself, and that doesn't work on Hollywood's biggest night (see the disaster of Seth MacFarlane)-better for a smaller venue like the Tony Awards.  I have never really liked Conan O'Brien, and I think that would be a Letterman redux if we had him host.  And Jon Stewart isn't listed not because I don't think he'd be great for a third go-around (I think he would), but he's probably more interested in being a nominee this year for Rosewater.

10. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill

If you want to attract the straight male audience, this may be the best way to do so without alienating your core group of women and gay men.  Both of these guys are extremely funny, and while I do wonder what they'd be like in straight stand-up, their SNL episodes are hilarious and that's frequently a great testing water for how someone will do at the Oscars.  Plus, they both are genuine movie stars now and starred in a big hit over the summer-this is a lot better option than Hathaway and Franco a few years ago.

9. Oprah Winfrey

I have genuinely wondered for years what an Oprah telecast would be like for the Oscars.  I know frequently people bring up Meryl as a host, and while I'm sure she'd be flawless (Meryl always is), no one can work a room like Oprah Winfrey.  Frequently people say the host doesn't matter, but I think this would be an interesting twist-Winfrey isn't a comedian, but she can be funny, and is able to instill a gravitas into the ceremony that few others would be able to do (focusing on the movies and the nominees rather than the dresses and the comedic bits).  Plus, she's a Hersholt winner and is wading pretty strongly back into acting-this would be a solid acknowledgement of that.  And if she doesn't host, can we bring back the Barbara Walters interview show and have Oprah host it?

8. Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper

I would list Lawrence solo, but she tends to go into some pretty saucy directions, and would need a straight man (pun not intended, oh you Towleroad-like readers), who clearly would be her frequent costar Cooper.  Cooper is extremely good at impressions, great in late night interviews, and is frequently funny (and of course has sensational chemistry with Lawrence).  Plus, both actors couldn't be hotter right now and this is one of those rare years where neither are actually going to be nominated and they need to promote Serena which finally got a distributor and will be released in the Spring-time to strike?

7. James Corden

I know this is unlikely to happen with the Academy Awards hosted on ABC and Corden now under contract to CBS, but this seems just about right.  He can sing, work a crowd, is comfortable on a stage, and is about ready to be a superstar.  Plus, it's been a while since we had a British host (the last one was Dudley Moore at the 55th Academy Awards over thirty years ago), and considering the country's dominance over the nominees over the Oscars' history, this seems like a bit of a contradiction.

6. Jimmy Kimmel

A far more likely contender to host would be ABC's own late-night host, and I honestly cannot figure out why he hasn't actually been called on to do this yet.  He can play to a room extremely well (see his Emmys, which I thoroughly enjoyed) and unlike Jimmy Fallon he can moderate without bursting into fits of laughter over his own jokes (plus Fallon would have too many skits-I hate too many skits at the Oscars, it makes it feel like we're watching SNL, or worse yet-the Emmys (shudder)).  Kimmel's after-Oscar special is already a staple-why not try it for the full night one year and see what happens?

5. Ellen Degeneres

I mean, if it ain't broke?  Last year's Oscars were extremely well-received and well-rated (the highest-watched in over a decade)-part of that is due to everyone's love of Ellen.  She knows how to be funny without being mean (aside from that cutting Liza Minnelli joke last year), and she knows how to bring both the audience at home and the audience in the theater together (I love that she makes a point of "introducing" certain actors and films to the audience that may not know them during her monologues).  Plus, I've long been a fan of AMPAS having hosts come back multiple times-it gives the ceremony itself some history rather than being a flash-in-the-pan every year.

4. Kevin Hart

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more in-demand or hotter actor right now.  Everything that Kevin Hart seems to do lately is a hit, and he's got legitimate stand-up chops.  I know that his films aren't what you'd consider "Academy-friendly," but let's be honest: for the most part, neither were Billy Crystal's and he's been a huge hit through the years.  Hart would also be a clever way for AMPAS to find a comedian that would cater well to the audience in the theater and to the audience at home (this is what made Billy so successful, as well as Johnny and Bob Hope-you have to have both audiences laughing) and would get those younger viewers that AMPAS is always clamoring to recruit.

3. Melissa McCarthy

I mean, isn't this obvious?  McCarthy is the biggest comedic star on the planet right now, and like Kevin Hart, seems to be able to make money for studios in her sleep.  She's persistently hilarious on SNL and whenever she's at an awards show, managing to make even unfunny material work with her show-business moxie.  Plus, she seems to be someone that everyone in Hollywood is rooting for, and therefore would be able to get some of the biggest stars in the audience in on a couple of her jokes and monologue bits (who doesn't want to see her explain the Scorsese drinking game to Marty himself?).  I would be stunned if her name isn't on the Oscar producers' shortlist already.

2. Louis CK

Numbers 2-4 are on here really because they’re the best mix of edgy and Academy-friendly.  One of the big misses with Seth MacFarlane was that people really don’t want a Comedy Central style roast of all of the people in the Dolby-they don’t want a cringe-worthy set of jokes that seems funny to frat boys and no one else.  They want someone who can gently poke fun at the people in the audience and still not appear toothless.  This is why CK would be near perfect-completely aware of his rising star in the Hollywood food chain, he’d be smart but still able to rib all of the A-listers without biting off the hand that feeds him.

1. Whoopi Goldberg

My brother and I may be the only two people in the world who would put Whoopi at the top of this list, but honestly-Whoopi hosted all of my favorite Oscars.  She knows how to do her homework (she frequently finds herself hitting all of the major movies in a way I’ve never seen a host do except for maybe Hugh Jackman), she’s hilarious and can read a room (she can tell when the monologue needs a softball and isn’t afraid to pitch it), and she’s a great actress.  Honestly-how long are we going to have to wait for her to hit her fifth show out of the park?

Those are my thoughts, but there are infinite possibilities-who are you hoping signs up to host the next Oscars?  Share in the comments!!!

OVP: How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Film: How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)
Stars: Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Djimon Hounsou, Kit Harington
Director: Dean DeBlois
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Like most of America, I was genuinely surprised by how much I liked the initial How to Train Your Dragon.  I'm definitely more in the Pixar camp with my animation, and Dreamworks has been a bit of a disappointment through the years for me.  I didn't care for anything in the Madagascar or Shrek franchises, and at the time of this movie, my favorite of their franchises (Kung Fu Panda) hadn't been seen yet.

That being said, the first How to Train Your Dragon was a delight.  Sure, it occasionally veered into abject silliness (the side characters in Dreamworks films rarely resonate in the way they do with Disney films in that there are usually too many of them and they are all one-note), but the action sequences and the animation were breathtaking.  I left that film really thankful that I had used 3-D (one of the few films I've ever made such a claim on) and curious if and when a sequel would arrive.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like all good animated films that make a boatload of money (you just know Olaf's getting a spinoff), Dragon did indeed make its sequel, which came out a few weeks ago to critical praise and tepid box office.  The film picks up largely where we had last left off-the dragons are now friends of the citizens of Berk, and all seems to be well and good in the land of winged creatures.  Of course, this can't continue (it's a movie, for crying out loud-we need some conflict), and we soon have an evil villain named Drago (Hounsou) trying to trap the dragons and use them for an army for himself.  All-the-while, Hiccup (Baruchel) is fighting with his father (Butler) about what his destiny should be, and his father insists that he needs to prepare to become the new chief.  It's classic animated film fodder-the fight between father and son over what the son's destiny should be.

The problems I have with the film are not aesthetic, or really related to the animation at all (I'll issue the verdict right now-I didn't like this as well as the first film).  The animation continues to be on par with the previous film-the flights are gorgeous, the fight scenes epic and wildly felt, and the actual sea of dragons are a delicious bevy of visual jokes and gorgeous hues.  Never before has Dreamworks come so close to getting a distinctive color palette in the way that almost all Pixar films manage to do, and I applaud them for this advancement.  If this were a silent film, quite frankly, it would be splendid.

But the film is not a silent movie, and the plot has some serious issues.  For starters, the movie tries to be too-many things at once, and I truly hated the way that Hiccup's relationship with his long lost mother (Blanchett) was treated.  She becomes sort of a mythic figure in the first half of the film, and then he discovers her and she's so much like him.  It would have been oddly refreshing to see an animated film that centers on the relationship between a mother and her son (I'm having trouble coming up with one-help me out in the comments), but this entire relationship takes a sharp backseat when (I wasn't kidding about those spoilers) Hiccup's father dies, shifting his mother into a background character once again and the entire film is reframed as a father/son tale.  Quite frankly, while I'm all for animated films handling heavier themes in the way of classic Disney (Bambi's mother would never die today), this seemed to be such a bizarre twist in this adventure that I felt like it deserved a different movie.

I also truly hated the ending of the film (yes, I'm going to trot out hate here)-I'm not as over the "chosen one" story as everyone else on the collective internet seems to be (it's been a standard aspect of literature and storytelling for centuries), but Toothless randomly becoming the new Alpha Dragon seems to be ridiculously over-the-top.  Quite frankly, did we even need an Alpha Dragon?  We know the villain isn't going to win-did we have to introduce this ludicrous new element to the story that essentially makes all of the dragons zombies rather than complicated creatures in their own right?  This felt tagged on, and like bad storytelling, and will hurt future stories in the franchise.

The more I think about the film, quite frankly, the more bitter the taste in my mouth gets.  The vocal work is all right (I loved Kit Harington as Eret the most, and hope he gets more of a role in the inevitable sequel), but nothing seems to stand out in this film the way the first movie clearly did.  I left it not wanting more and reveling in what I just saw, but questioning whether the first film was as good as I thought at the time.  That's the damaging effect of a bad sequel-it makes you rethink your love of the first film, which is clearly not the point of a franchise.

Those are my thoughts on How to Train Your Dragon 2-what are yours?  Did you agree that this was a disappointment, or are you pro-Dragon Part Deux?  Do you think there will be a sequel?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

22 Jump Street (2014)

Film: 22 Jump Street (2014)

Stars: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Peter Stormare, Ice Cube, Amber Stevens, Jillian Bell, Nick Offerman

Director: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Switching gears from the Kardashian piece this morning, I figured it was time to review one of the better films in theaters right now, the sequel to the 2012 surprise critical and commercial hit 21 Jump Street.  Not stretching many creative muscles, they simply named the film 22 Jump Street, and while the film doesn’t tread on particularly new ground in this installment, don’t mistake it for a Hangover II style leftover-this is still fresh and fun entertainment, with a ridiculously winning pair at the center of the movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) Hill and Tatum, in real life in their thirties, are sent back to college in this hilarious follow-up to the original 21 Jump Street.  Once again, they’re undercover partners, but they’ve now become complete bro’s for life.  One of the fascinating things about the post Knocked Up period of cinema has been the bro-nature of films that have come out, ranging from the horrifying (most anything Adam Sandler has done in this avenue) to the sublime (how good was I Love You Man, and why can’t someone give Jason Segel something truly brilliant again?).  22 Jump Street has plenty of homo-centric overtones (the jokes about how Hill’s Schmidt and Tatum’s Jenko are a couple occasionally run a bit flat, but for the most part are solid hits), but at the center is a showcase of how your best friend can define even the most mundane aspects of yourself.

The film works best when it isn’t thinking too hard-you almost don’t want there to be a plot (and by-and-large, there isn’t one), but instead just a series of one-liners and gags.  Tatum is the better of the two leads, in that he is more effortless as Jenko, though at this point can Channing Tatum do no wrong?  Honestly-between Jump Street, Magic Mike, and that insanely funny cameo in This is the End, he’s proven to be one of the most charming leading men in comedy working today.  I’m thrilled to see exactly what happens when he turns to straight drama later this year in Foxcatcher, but he’s proven himself to be a truly terrific movie star in the past few years.

Ditto Jonah Hill, who obviously had comedic chops but has also proven that he takes his career very seriously.  He’s stepped up his game considerably since Moneyball (no more Sitters, but now just smart comedies, choice voice work, and two Oscar-nominated turns in Best Picture nominees).  Again, he shows his work a little bit too much here (he’s not as effortless onscreen as Tatum, and needs to work on that though Wolf of Wall Street was a strong start), but when he gets a great scene partner he elevates the movie.  While grand whenever he and Tatum are onscreen, he’s even better opposite snarky, nasty Jillian Bell, who plays his girlfriends' enigmatic roommate.  Bell’s entire on-screen persona is brilliant (she’s the clear standout of the supporting cast), not least of which is because her schtick is persistently mocking Hill for looking so old when in fact she’s almost exactly his age in real life (Bell, best known for her work on the sitcom Workaholics, could be in for a truly great year as she’s finished production on her second Paul Thomas Anderson film due out later this year).

The film occasionally gets a bit heavy-handed and there are stories that don’t really go anywhere.  Did anyone else feel like Wyatt Russell’s Zook was going to end up in love with Tatum’s Jenko at the end of the film?  I feel like something got cut on the editing floor on that one, and I think it's about damn time we have a bromance between a gay guy and a straight guy (seriously-straight dudes have gay friends, Hollywood), but by-and-large this is a sweet, wonderful delight worthy of the original film.  If all sequels were this light, we’d have no reason to complain.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you equally as smitten with the latest Hill/Tatum mashup?  Are you hoping for a 23 Jump Street?  Where do you see Jillian Bell’s career going?  Share in the comments!

OVP: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Film: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner
Director: Martin Scorsese
Oscar History: 5 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor-Jonah Hill, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Martin Scorsese through the years has become an absolute master of not only the cinema, but getting people to talk about the movies.  Scorsese is perhaps the most noted director currently talking about classic cinema (Woody Allen would rival him if he did more interviews).  You rarely see an interview with Scorsese where he doesn't reference John Ford or The Red Shoes or some early sound era actress.  He's someone who is deeply respectful of his place in the filmic world, and wants to contribute to the conversation.

He has done this for years by creating smart, interesting films that get people to talk.  Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Casino-these are movies that spur discussion about violence, sex, and debauchery in our general world.  And yet since he started his mad dash to the Oscars in 2002, his films, while still of quality (well, maybe not Gangs of New York) haven't had that sort of splash.  Even a film like The Departed, which looks out-of-place compared to most Oscar winners, is a superb film but it lacks the boundary-pushing that his earlier work did.  So it was something of a surprise to me when The Wolf of Wall Street came out and almost everyone started discussing it in highly polarized views, wondering about the lifestyle that it was promoting and whether it lauded or hated Jordan Belfort (played, of course, by Leonardo DiCaprio).

(Spoilers Ahead) I feel like that question both needs to be answered first in a review of the film, particularly one where I'm the last one to the party, and doesn't need to be answered at all.  Because at the end of the day, the thing that matters is if this is a strong movie or not.  Films frequently can be quite excellent if you don't agree with them.  Someone can be an atheist and still acknowledge the wonder of Ben-Hur.  It's not an either/or situation.  That being said, I think that while Martin Scorsese is not a man who celebrates this sort of lifestyle, and neither is his star Leonardo DiCaprio (and by lifestyle I mean using corruption, greed, and fraud to live a life of senseless pleasure, not sleeping with models and throwing wild parties, because clearly Leo is up for that), the movie does luxuriate Mr. Belfort's time at the top.  How can it not?  It's a bit similar to The Bling Ring last year in that both films have this incredibly decadent, fascinating lifestyle and they both succeed in making it look false and tacky, but they also succeed in making it look quite appetizing.  You may hate yourself for what you have to do to wear a Brioni and date a supermodel, but man are you going to look good while doing it.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's dive into the actual movie at hand, which is strong, though we're judging on a curve here both because it is a Scorsese picture (I feel bad for artists who succeed that early in their careers, but we expect different from the likes of the guy who can do something like Taxi Driver) and because the film nabbed five Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, so it's worth noting that it's not the best film Scorsese has ever made (hyperbole that seems to come out every time a master makes a new film, at least from the Peter Travers crowd).  The film's best attribute is at its center.  Scorsese and DiCaprio hasn't always made sense (Gangs of New York was a fatal miscasting), but here it seems quite perfect.  Leo, like Jordan Belfort, is a former golden boy who knows a thing or two about partying.  You can actually see Leo enjoying himself and stretching a bit as an actor.  The Oscar nominee has long wanted to be thought of as a "serious" thespian, and I don't think anyone would deny he is one at this point, but that being said, his best role in my opinion may well be Titanic.  He has a natural charm in that film that lends itself so perfectly to the screen, and yet film after film after film, he seems to be trying to stifle it.  Here it comes out (albeit in occasionally grotesque ways) marvelously.  You can genuinely see why the rest of the world is enamored with this man-you do want to be him, you do want to be part of his web and gain his approval.  He's intoxicating.

The rest of the cast is solid, though, too.  Jonah Hill scored a surprise Oscar nomination for his work in the film (he was the no-precursor nominee of the year), and I have to say this is easily my favorite piece of work from Hill so far in his short filmography.  Since coming from rather humble roots, he had started to establish himself as clearly a nice guy with really good taste in scripts (or at least a damn fine agent), but here he does something additional: he proves that he can act.  He takes what is a gross character and adds shades to him, but never at the sacrifice of us cringing when he's on-screen.  That takes talent, and I'm hoping that Hill stays a part of Scorsese's world, as it's high time we had someone fill Joe Pesci's shoes.  Margot Robbie is also quite excellent, though strangely didn't gain Oscar traction, despite Scorsese being oddly good with Supporting Actresses (you wouldn't guess it from his male-dominated filmography, but he has actually landed supporting actress nods for seven different women).  Robbie is supposed to perch herself as simply a point-of-lust in Jordan's eyes, but is smart enough of an actress to let the audience see the growth in her character, even if she doesn't let her husband.

The problems with the movie are both around the endless string of debauchery (the point has been made-we don't need three hours of it) and the fact that the film doesn't quite know where to put all of its attention when it starts to lull.  The problem with a biopic is that we the audience know where this is going.  We know Belfort is going to get caught, otherwise there wouldn't be a movie.  Scorsese, though, is treating the audience as if we don't have a clue where he's headed, frequently making stops that don't need to be made (the entire Jean DuJardin story could be lifted with almost no issue).  He's trying to make a big, giant movie, and he does, but to what point?  This is a man whose story is already quite known-three hours is too much unless it's a tale we haven't heard yet.

The film also doesn't know quite what to do with its side characters-the film frequently has people actually getting arrested (I recall the platinum blonde woman), but these characters are so ancillary that you don't even know their names.  Scorsese's past films got this, giving these parts at least some relevance to the film, but not here.  They are just wallpaper.

Still, though, an admirable effort to get back into the zeitgeist by a director who was once the reigning voice in edgy cinema.  It says something that this was not only the ballsiest film to be nominated for Best Picture last year, but it was also from the oldest director in the field.  Now into his seventies, Martin Scorsese continues to find interesting things to say about the world around him, and thankfully, has the movies to share those thoughts.

Let's hear from you (I'm positive you've all seen this movie by now)-what did you think of Wolf of Wall Street?  Where do you stand on the celebrate/condemn the sinner debate?  Will Leo (or at this rate, Jonah Hill) ever win an Oscar?  And what's your favorite Scorsese (and conversely, what's your Scorsese filmography blind spot, that shameful film you for some reason haven't caught yet)?  Share in the comments!