OVP: Supporting Actress (2000)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Judi Dench, Chocolat

Marcia Gay Harden, Pollock

Kate Hudson, Almost Famous

Frances McDormand, Almost Famous

Julie Walters, Billy Elliot

My Thoughts: Surprises aren't really a thing in the Oscar acting races anymore, not like they once were.  Today, you might go in knowing you're going to win (Robert Downey Jr. this year), knowing you might win (Lily Gladstone this year), or knowing you won't win (Sterling K. Brown this year).  But there was a time where technically anyone could win, and what a thrill that was (the real ones will know what I just did).  In 2000, we had one of the bigger upsets in the acting races we've encountered in our My Ballots, when Marcia Gay Harden pulled off victory over far likelier contenders that year.

Let's start with Marcia.  For those who don't know, in 2000, you could've made a serious argument that Harden was in fifth place even among the nominees before she went on to win.  She got her victory through being just that good.  Her Lee Krasner is a fascinating composite onscreen.  We see the ways that Harden navigates being a wife, a female painter (in a time where they got ignored), and someone who understood the financial opportunity that came with marrying one of the great artistic minds of the 20th Century.  Adding in a fantastic bit of accent work, Harden becomes very hard to beat if you actually see her movie.

That said, her chief competition at the time was impressive too.  One of her biggest competitors was Kate Hudson, who roared into movie stardom (just like her mom) with Almost Famous, and like her mom, got an Oscar nomination to prove it.  I think people's attitudes toward Hudson in the years that followed (where she hit stardom, but not superstardom and never did something this good again) have clouded their tastes on this performance, which is really wonderful.  She embodies the beautiful hipster, trying to cling to those who are actually experiencing fame, knowing (but never showing) that this will only last while her youth continues.  It's a tragic, but very real performance, and the soul of the film.

The other competitor for the win was Judi Dench.  Just two years after her Oscar win, she was a serious threat for victory in 2000 for Chocolat (and easily the closest that Miramax came to getting that film a statue).  Her work here is pleasant.  It'd become the prototype for the "sweet old woman" roles that Dench would milk as a proper movie star in the next couple of decades, but it hadn't been established yet so it feels much fresher.  I do think that this isn't worthy of Oscar, even if it's good acting-it's a bit too paper thin, especially in her character's bigger moments.

Julie Walters is another renowned British character actress who made it into this field, and her work in Billy Elliot is also solid.  I will admit to a soft spot for both of these actresses (I'll watch anything they do), but I don't think that Walters is quite as good as, say, her costar Jamie Bell in this film.  She gives us a lot of what we'd expect from Walters (a surly disposition masking a kindly heart), but it doesn't give us quite enough more.  I wanted more hints at how she missed her own opportunities, how she also dreamed of getting out, to add more dimension to her character.  But, again, a fine piece of work that it's hard to get mad about Oscar citing.

Frances McDormand is arguably the best actress of these five women, but I do think she has the least to do in her nominated performance, and more importantly, the least impact on her film.  Her concerned mother has some humor which McDormand can ring, but it comes across as a bit one-note, or at the very least sharp as she imbues the "anxious mother who doesn't understand" character with little nuance.  It's possible that this nomination cost Hudson her win with vote-splitting, but I'd not entirely be convinced anyone looked at this and said "one of the year's five best" without it actually getting a nomination.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Hudson, and the same lineup as Oscar save Harden, who was pushed out for Catherine Zeta-Jones (Traffic).  SAG gave their statue to Dench, again against the Oscar lineup without Harden (here it was Kate Winslet in Quills who got the nomination).  BAFTA gave their statue to Julie Walters (see what I mean about Harden being a surprise) with McDormand, Dench, Lena Olin (Chocolat), & Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) as the nominees.  In sixth place, I think you could make a few arguments here.  Zeta-Jones was obviously in the running, but at the time she was facing something of a "too-much-too-soon" backlash (she's always been an old school "give good quip" sort of movie star, and that has occasionally hurt her with a press that wanted a docile princess-type).  So it was likely either Winslet or Connie Nielsen (Gladiator) nearly making it, both the primary female character in an all-male, Oscar-cited cast.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices against Catherine Zeta-Jones (I don't want relatable stars), and would've nominated her splendid work in Traffic, showing how deep her talent could get two years before Oscar could no longer deny her.

Oscar’s Choice: Like I said above, Marcia Gay Harden pulled off a big upset against Dench & Hudson, a win that has aged pretty well by my estimation.

My Choice: In a very close race (both of them will show up in our My Ballot article in the next week) I will select Marcia Gay Harden over Kate Hudson, as I think she has more notable character work in her choices, but either would've made a good winner.  Behind them are Walters, Dench, and then McDormand.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone agree with Marcia Gay Harden as the Oscar victor, or do people want someone else in retrospect?  When was the last time you feel we had a truly left field acting winner?  And was it Zeta-Jones, Winslet, or Nielsen in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2000: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

Wild Rose (2019)

Film: Wild Rose (2019)
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Julie Walters, Sophie Okonedo
Director: Tom Harper
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

One of the more common questions I'm asked is "what kinds of movies do you like?"  While I have stock answers, either the truthful "I like all kinds of movies" or the less obnoxious "film noir, westerns, and caper films," in all honesty there are a couple of genres I'd be fine never seeing another movie of again.  This is not because they aren't enjoyable (I mean it when I say that all genres are capable of greatness), but because filmmakers seem incapable of finding something original to say about them anymore.  Perhaps the biggest culprit in the "I'm over this" cinematic genre Olympics is the "struggling musician achieves greatness" trope.  This has been seen recently in both biopic (Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman) as well as fictional (A Star is Born), but it's always the same story. With Wild Rose, which felt like its reviews might give me something unique & different, I was hoping for something that wasn't just a rags-to-riches tale.  While it wasn't quite that, I still leave thinking this isn't the "genre-saver" that this cliche clearly needs.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Rose-Lynn (Buckley) a recent parolee who was arrested for drug smuggling, and who dreams of stardom in Nashville, despite being a Scottish country singer.  Her mother Marion (Walters) takes care of her children for the most part, while Rose-Lynn eschews responsibility for her family whenever it means that she can pursue her dream.  She gets a chance to do just that when her employer, Susannah (Okonedo) arranges for her to meet with a famed disc jockey for the BBC.  He encourages her to start writing her own music, as she can sing but hasn't found her niche yet.  Susannah also finds a way to send Rose-Lynn to Nashville after a fundraiser, but Rose-Lynn backs out, realizing that her mother was right-she doesn't understand the responsibility she has to her children.  Eventually Marion gives Rose-Lynn the money to go to Nashville to pursue her dream, but once she's there, she understands that her future, both in her musical career and with her children, is still in Scotland, and comes back, eventually getting to perform at a famed Scottish musical festival her original song of "Glasgow" to an uproarious crowd.

The movie, as you can tell from the plot description, is not treading new ground.  The idea of someone eventually realizing the greatest gift is their children and that they should dream a little closer to home is something that has permeated throughout cinematic history.  The film is filled with solid performances.  Buckley has a helluva voice, and hopefully with the surprise BAFTA nomination she got for this (putting her up against the likes of Charlize Theron and Renee Zellweger), she'll be able to translate this into other work, and Okonedo & Walters are both solid supporting players always.  But the script is tired and predictable, and other than perhaps our glimpse into the life of a wealthy, privileged housewife (Okonedo's Susannah) doesn't give us much to chew on in terms of new fodder from an exhausted genre.

That said, the music is excellent.  Buckley tackles covers of country legends ranging from Wynonna Judd to Patty Griffin to Emmylou Harris with aplomb, making them sound like you've heard them for the first time even if you know the lyrics by heart.  The original song "Glasgow" is a showstopper in the best way, and as it's near the end, will almost convince you its a better movie than you actually had just seen.  I don't like discussing Oscar chances within the bodies of reviews as it makes them age horribly, but I'm going to take an exception since tomorrow is nominations day-considering what's on the shortlist, it would be a crime if "Glasgow" got bounced for some considerably more banal entries, though I have to wonder if a movie this small will be able to get in against major pop stars like Beyonce and Elton John.  If it does get the surprise nomination, it may be giving light to a relatively routine movie, but a soundtrack you need to download immediately.

OVP: Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

Film: Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Stars: Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer, Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, Joel Dawson, Julie Walters, Dick van Dyke, Angela Lansbury, Colin Firth, Meryl Streep
Director: Rob Marshall
Oscar History: 4 nominations (Best Costume Design, Score, Production Design, Original Song-"The Place Where the Lost Things Go")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

We live in a world of sequels and remakes.  Hollywood is learning this the hard way this summer as we watch a perpetual list of movies like Men in Black International and Shaft fail to make an indent at the Box Office (pretty much anyone who isn't Marvel has been struggling with remakes/followups this year).  But I'm more curious, as we get to a culture where we're constantly remaking films, what the role of film criticism would be in this case, particularly when it comes to classic films being remade or reinvented, but largely having the same plot as before.  Remakes are not new (this was the fourth A Star is Born movie last year, after all), but they are nearly constant right now, and one has to wonder when it comes to truly landmark films like A Star is Born or Mary Poppins or (later this year) West Side Story, what sort of curve should you be judging on when you look at the film itself compared to its classic predecessor?  How do you judge a film that's essential a carbon copy of its original?

(Spoilers Ahead) This was a question that I wrestled with when looking at Mary Poppins Returns, a movie that is lovely and pleasant on the surface of it, but it also is basically the same exact movie from 1964.  The problem is, that while I've seen the original film, it was not a cornerstone of my childhood the way that it was for so many people perhaps a few years older than me.  Julie Andrews was Maria von Trapp in my world, not Mary Poppins, and so I can understand the vast appeal of this movie to an audience that isn't enamored with the original.  The film's premise is that of a sequel even if it's basically a copy of the first film, with Mary Poppins (Blunt) returning years after taking care of the Banks children Michael (Whishaw) and Jane (Mortimer), and now must look after them again as Michael is about to lose their house and Jane is, well, in need of a man (Jane seems fine, but it's Disney so we need to throw in some heteronormative stuff rather than risk Jane being a lesbian).  She joins them as the nanny to Michael's three children after his wife dies, and they set off on a series of adventures across town with Topsy (Mary Poppins's cousin, played by Meryl Streep) and Jack (Miranda, whose character is an apprentice of Dick van Dyke's Bert) occasionally getting in on the fun.

This is a lovely little film.  The songs are not as memorable as the original, but that's a hard bar to clear, and you have such game performers all-around that you don't really notice that they aren't that good until you've left the theater.  Miranda & Blunt are a perfect odd-pair, with her cool standoffishness (a nice mirror of the original with Julie Andrews) and his unceasing nice-guy charisma working well together.  The supporting cast is lovely (Whishaw & Mortimer aren't really capable of being "not lovely") and the cameos are springy (in addition to Streep, we have Dick van Dyke playing a different character but still a true joy to see on the screen, and we also get the Balloon Lady ala Angela Lansbury).  The film won four Oscar nominations, and it's easy to see why as Disney assembled a top-notch crew to recreate one of their most seminal classics.

But it's basically the same movie as the 1964 version, albeit with less surprise and an almost constant need to make you swim in nostalgia.  This is Disney's MO recently, and I'm not inhuman-I liked it, I cried when Dick van Dyke got on that desk and started to dance, but it's also kind of manipulative.  It's objectively a lesser film than its predecessor, and it's genuinely hard to tell if it's actually any good because it only works with the previous movie, which it's wholesale ripping off.  But I liked it, so I'm going with 3 stars, which feels about right for a movie that I enjoyed, but can't really confirm if it's good or just trying to take me back to my childhood, even though my childhood didn't really feature Mary Poppins.  A conundrum of a film, but a good one for a lazy afternoon.

4 Mini Reviews

As I mentioned yesterday, we will be doing three days of mini reviews as I catch up on the movies I saw in 2018 (and today one FilmStruck movie I never got around to reviewing) in an effort to wrap up 2018 before we will start doing OVP's from that year in the next few months.  As a result, here are four additional films I saw in 2018, that, while interesting, I will be giving an abbreviated review to rather than a full one as I'm a bit behind & am tired of being behind on my film reviews.

(Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen Smallfoot, Red Sparrow, Paddington 2, or 1961's Victim, please skip over those sections & come back later when you have!)

Smallfoot (dir. Karey Kirkpatrick)

Yes, yes, we're all aware that Zendaya is Meechee, but the better question is-is this movie any good?  The question is hard to answer, as there are moments of charm in this kind of dismissible animated feature that, like seemingly all animated features, still grossed over $200 million.  Centering on the unlikely friendship between a Yeti (Channing Tatum) and a documentarian (James Corden) trying at first to exploit his new friend & then protect him, it's cute that they focus on this from the Yeti's perspective, having the humans be the "imaginary creature," but the joke gets old after a while, and no one in the voice talent is particularly good in their role, with Tatum's earnestness being the best fit for the role.  The songs are lackluster, and there's too much plot for a 96-minute movie, making the entire Percy-redemption storyline feel a bit combed over.  (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Red Sparrow (dir. Francis Lawrence)

Jennifer Lawrence had been taking an interesting tact post-Oscar win, using her massive celebrity to greenlight movies like Joy and Mother!, which got a wider audience than they ever could have hoped to get without her face across the posters.  There's unfortunately nothing noble about her Red Sparrow, though, as this is a completely commercial play, and not an enjoyable one (or that successful of one).  The spy thriller moves along at a glacial pace (it's 140 minutes long, and could have dropped a half hour without any speed bumps), and is easy to see coming.  All of the twists are apparent to anyone who has seen a movie like this before, and the film relies heavily on extreme violence and sex to titillate the audience, but it just feels gross after a while.  Even with actors as pedigreed as Jeremy Irons & Charlotte Rampling filling out the supporting class, there's little to redeem here and Lawrence's considerable movie star charisma can't save such a dud.  Here's to hoping that she either works with better blockbuster directors going forward or returns to the arthouse soon. (Ranking: 1/5 stars)

Paddington 2 (dir. Paul King)

The best movie on this list by a country mile, Paddington 2 takes the lovely, calm tone of the first film and perfects it, with a better villain.  Hugh Grant made my personal ballot for Best Supporting Actor in 2018, and with good reason-he's marvelous as a vain, conniving washed-up actor who is desperate to find a hidden treasure by way of a pop-up book (a beautifully constructed sequence).  The film fills out the cast with a cavalry of Royal Shakespeare Company actors, but it's Grant and Ben Whishaw's Paddington, so calm, so of a different era, yet totally at home in such a film that makes this movie special.  I'd say "they don't make them like this anymore," but clearly they do, and it's refreshing & a bit shocking to find out that a movie like Paddington 2 has an audience.  Bravo to Paul King, who manages to avoid what could have been pablum and pulls together a sweet tale without ever making it sugary. (Ranking: 4/5 stars)

Victim (dir. Basil Dearden)

Considering the landmark position Victim has in LGBT cinema, it's kind of crap that I am not writing a full review on this one, but let's be real here-this is a basic suspense film that's only proper calling card is featuring a gay main protagonist.  The film, centering around the blackmail scheme of a barrister who has had a romantic (but non-sexual, cause heaven forbid he get laid) relationship with a man twenty years his junior.  The barrister is played by Dirk Bogarde, who famously was well-loved in Britain but never became proper star in the United States (probably because he was gay in real-life & didn't downplay this to the degree that would have been acceptable in 1960's Hollywood, making this film all-the-more-shocking), but I wasn't blown away at all by his work here-he plays his repressed homosexual as a constant reassurance to the straight audience that he "isn't like" the deviants that are immediately coming to mind.  This is my way of pointing out that while this was aggressively progressive at the time (it's the first English-language film to use the word "homosexual"), it has aged poorly, to the point where you really have to focus on the non-gay elements to see if it works...and it doesn't, as the suspense is marred down by antiquated politics & a thin plot.  I try to grade based on the era, rather than our current one's, but even by that metric this is just 2/5 stars.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)

Film: Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)
Stars: Amanda Seyfried, Lily James, Dominic Cooper, Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Andy Garcia, Cher, Meryl Streep
Director: Ol Parker
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I have seen the musical Mamma Mia! both onstage and in theaters, but for me the songs of ABBA will always be something from my childhood, not something I learned about as an adult.  While I was nowhere near old enough to have ABBA be something on the "new hits" radio when I was younger, I stole my mom's ABBA Gold CD (along with Carole King's Tapestry & The Bodyguard...coming out feels so unnecessary in hindsight) and played it over-and-over again, secretly wishing for "Man After Midnight" and strutting to the "Dancing Queen."  The appeal of ABBA is their inexplicably fresh, infectious pop melodies-it's impossible to hear one of their songs that you know and not sing along as a result.  This is also the appeal of the Mamma Mia! franchise, now expanding into a fun, though oddly melancholy sequel-it makes the audience's nostalgia and inability to not sing along a character onto itself.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film take places a couple of years after the previous film, with Sophie (Seyfried) trying to make her mother's hotel dream come to life a year after Donna (Streep) has passed away.  Her relationship with her boyfriend Sky (Cooper) is strained as he is consistently away on business (and the audience is upset that he isn't jet-skiing in red board shorts again), and that two of her three fathers, Harry (Firth) and Bill (Skarsgard) aren't going to be able to make it for the grand opening.  We also learn that Sophie is pregnant (though in this case she knows Sky is the father), and we see flashbacks to her mother's arrival on this Greek island, and her interactions with younger versions of the three fathers.  This back-and-forth actually works quite well, with Lily James stepping into the role of a younger Donna with a great fizz.  The film ends with Donna's grandmother (Cher) coming out of the woodwork in time to sing "Super Trouper" and "Fernando" to a very game Andy Garcia (between this and Book Club, this is the summer of Andy Garcia romancing older women, and I am here for it).

The movie lives or dies off of the two things: the songs and the hot guys.  Really, Mamma Mia knows that its audience is women and gay men, and it doesn't disappoint either group.  The songs are fluffy and fun, and while there aren't any standout numbers (other than the gaudy loveliness of "Fernando"...I was at a morning matinee and I still heard applause from my fellow moviegoers when Cher started singing), you'd have to be deaf with a heart-of-stone not to be humming one of the songs when you left the theater.  The latter aspect we get in the forms of the three young fathers: Hugh Skinner (young Harry), Jeremy Irvine (Young Sam), and Josh Dylan (Young Bill).  Dylan, in particular, with his mop of blond hair and Elvis-like swinging thin hips, literally made me blush when he started moonwalking on a boat it was so, umm, arousing.  They could have just used the tagline "Come for the Hot Guys...Stay for the Cher" and made just as much as money.

The film's decision to go in a darker direction than its predecessor, with Donna dead for most of the film, feels a bit off at first, but as the film progresses it kind of works.  It's a testament to the confidence of Lily James' work, the appeal of the younger "dads" and the tunes of ABBA that you don't really miss Meryl Streep until she shows up and reminds you that she's a true movie star for a reason, giving a wrenching performance of "My Love, My Life."  Streep, more prone to cameos in recent years than she used to be (The Horseman, Suffragette, Mamma Mia 2, and probably Mary Poppins Returns this winter), knows how to effectively land her character in a few short breaths, and rocks out over the credits with Cher.  If they make another movie (and honestly why not at this point?), they don't need to even have the callback to her when they inevitably push Shirley MacLaine as Sophie's great-grandmother, but Meryl makes the most of her big number (as expected).

OVP: Brooklyn (2015)

Film: Brooklyn (2015)
Stars: Saoirse Ronan, Domhnall Gleeson, Emory Cohen, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters
Director: John Crowley
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Picture, Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I am a longtime sucker for a period romance, and up until 2015, I was kind of in a bit of a drought.  In the past few years though, this is a genre that has seemingly gone out of style, so imagine my wonderful surprise when I realized that not only were there three major period romances this year, but they were all magnificent (Testament of Youth and Carol were the other ones).  Brooklyn was the one, however, that made the biggest impact on Oscar, though, as it's the only one that made it into the Best Picture race and is the final 2015 Best Picture nominee I haven't reviewed yet on the blog.  Thankfully, I got the review in just under the wire as the Oscars are, of course, tomorrow.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is the story of Eilis (Ronan), a young Irish girl who goes to the United States in the 1950's to get a better life for herself.  She becomes a shop girl, and spends much of her time alternating between a job that she doesn't seem particularly good at and homesickness amongst her occasionally catty boardinghouse mates.  As the film progresses, she falls in love with Tony (Cohen), an Italian also living in Brooklyn, and their unlikely pairing ends in marriage before Eilis must go back to Ireland upon the death of her sister.  After falling for an Irishman named Jim (Gleeson), she realizes that her heart still belongs with Tony and she returns home to him in Brooklyn, forgoing a potentially more conventional life in her home country.

The film's greatest strength is that it actually takes itself seriously.  For so many years I've watched romantic films that have too many winks.  Side characters that are meant to make us think that what is happening isn't important or humor that doesn't feel organic to the everyday moments of the picture.  Brooklyn has humorous elements (particularly the wonderful scenes with Julie Walters and the other women in the boarding house), but they feel so natural in the story and never like a side distraction from the seriousness that is happening onscreen.  So often, especially in pictures that center around women and romance, we are expected to lighten up and told that the struggles of our characters aren't important, but Brooklyn never patronizes us and it presents Eilis' decisions as very much central to herself and her future.  Let's not forget that these are two vastly different worlds, and the writers know that and make sure that the film is steeped in finely-tuned drama.

This sort of seriousness has created some of the best pictures of all-time, in my opinion, and while Brooklyn doesn't hit quite that lofty of a title, it is clearly near the shadow of movies like Waterloo Bridge, Brokeback Mountain, and Doctor Zhivago.  The actors and cast are uniformly good.  It's weird to think of Saoirse Ronan, that girl who rocked our world in Atonement, graduating into adulthood so seamlessly, but here she proves she's more than ready to tackle serious roles and sit alongside the likes of Brie Larson, Alicia Vikander, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as a new generation of actresses become matinee idols.  I love the way that Nick Hornby makes both Jim and Tony extraordinarily likable and worthy of her; so often in romantic dramas you see two different characters and you know which of the people she "has to" pick, but here the film moves in a way that you can just as easily find her going toward Jim because her life will be easier but just as full.  That's a testament to a truly great source material and adaptation.

I know the film only scored three Oscar nominations, but I'm so glad that one of them was Best Picture.  Movies like Brooklyn feel like a mirage they come along so rarely.  Elegance and introversion are scarce breeds on the silver-screen without ostentatious indulgence.  While it may not win tomorrow, Brooklyn surely has my ballot for Best Picture of 2015.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Did you love Brooklyn as much as I did, or were you hoping for something a little bit more crackling?  Where do you see the careers of Ronan and Cohen going next?  And are you excited to see Julie Walters' TV spinoff of this series come to the BBC?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Women and the Best Picture Race

There have been a number of conversations about diversity at the Oscars this year, and while I was going to write an article on the subject, Nathaniel Rogers over at the Film Experience beat me to it, and did it so well that I feel that linking is the best way to add to the conversation (though please read through it if you want to have a conversation to improve diversity in Hollywood and not just want to complain about the Oscars).  As a result of this, but still wanting to contribute to the conversation, I decided to comment on something that actually got better this year than last year, though it's not where we want it to be yet (optimism is out-of-vogue on the internet, but I figured I'd give it a shot) and that is the amount of women that are in the Best Picture field.

As you may recall from last year, only one of the eight nominees for Best Picture featured a woman in a leading role (The Theory of Evrything's Felicity Jones), and only half of the films managed to pass the Bechdel Test.  This year we actually have a rosier picture, even if movies like Carol didn't manage to make it into the conversation, as nearly half of the films feature a female lead in their picture.  The rest of the field may have had some room for improvement, but let's take a rundown of the eight Best Pictures and the roles that women played in each of them (Spoilers Ahead for all eight films so if you haven't seen one, skip, only read the rest, and bookmark for a later date)

Film: The Big Short
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1? (I hate the IMDB method of only going with first person onscreen-list by order in the cast credits!).  As a result, I don't know if it was Finn Wittrock or in fact Marisa Tomei or Melissa Leo in the fifth position.  Let's go benefit of the doubt and assume it's Marisa Tomei even though screen-time wise it's not remotely her.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character? Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Absolutely nothing-she becomes a bit of a sounding board for Steve Carell, but really there's little she has to do with the film's resolution.
Does She Have a Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she doesn't-we never see Tomei outside of her life that involves her husband.
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Bridge of Spies
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Amy Ryan)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's in the final scene of the movie if I recall correctly (or at least near it), but she's mostly just there to remind James Donovan of what normalcy is in his world.  Her life has little bearing on the outcome of the picture.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she does not.  Amy's Mary is little more than window dressing in this film, someone who is there to support, occasionally cajole, but ultimately I don't know that she even has any scenes that don't feature her husband (she definitely doesn't have any scenes that don't center upon him).
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Brooklyn
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Saoirse Ronan and Julie Walters)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: With Ronan, she's actually the main character as this is one of the steps in the right direction in this category.  For Walters, she plays Ronan's landlord.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Ronan is an integral part of the ending of the film, and actually shapes her own narrative even if it is ultimately about deciding on a man (still, it's on deciding specifically which man she wants to be with which is very empowering).  For Walters, she really only features into the first half of the film, so she has no bearing on the ending.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, Ronan is the main character and most definitely has an evolution of her own, even outside of the main character.  For Walters, she does as well-she's been a landlord for years, has scenes interacting with her other female tenants, and while she rarely (if ever?) appears in a scene without Ronan's Eilis, it's clear she has other relationships in the film.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Constantly-the film's first half in particular is all about the relationships women have with each other and the common struggle of female immigrants in particular.

Film: Mad Max: Fury Road
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Charlize Theron and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: While Tom Hardy's Mad Max may get top-billing and the film uses his character for the title, this is all about the Imperator Furiosa, so this is another case where one of the women is in fact the main character.  In the case of Huntington-Whiteley's Splendid Angharad, she is one of the women that Furiosa is trying to save.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: In the end Furiosa ends up the savior of the Citadel, riding in as their new leader and essentially taking over.  Huntington-Whiteley has little bearing on the ending, but she too manages to at least live until the end and is welcomed back into the Citadel.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: This is true of both women.  Furiosa has been pining to get to her home of the Green Place and Max is incidental to this goal, while The Splendid Angharad has had a pretty crappy life up until this point, but it's clearly established and gets a personality distinct from the other wives.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-it's a little hard to follow on this front because names aren't often given out and when they are they don't sound like names, but I'm fairly confident that the wives and the Vuvalini all get names at some point, and they have multiple discussions about their journey and the Green Place, so I'm going with a pass.

Film: The Martian
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Jessica Chastain and Kate Mara)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: In the case of Chastain's Commander Melissa Lewis, she's his boss and in the case of Kate Mara's Beth, she's a fellow crew mate on his ship.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While both women are involved in Mark's rescue, in the case of Chastain in particular she plays a pretty integral role as she has to suspend and risk her life in order to save Mark from Mars.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, with Chastain this isn't really well-established.  We see her having interactions with other characters, and her job is clearly important to her, but Mark Watney is her focus for almost the entire film and she doesn't really get a side story.  Mara, on the other hand, gets a romantic interest (and it's Sebastian Stan, no less), and so I'd say yes for her getting a life outside of Mark since she has relationships established outside of his world.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-I had to look this one up as I couldn't remember an instance of this happening, but it does appear that Chastain and Mara discuss decompressing the ship, so this is pass.

Film: The Revenant
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: None-this is the only film (The Big Short is a question mark) where we can unequivocally state that there are no women in the top billed stars.  Grace Dove is the top billed actress for the movie as far as I can tell even though she doesn't have a line, though Melaw Nakehk'o gets a character with a line and a name, it's worth noting.  For the purposes of this exercise we'll stick with the higher-billed Dove as that's who the film spends more time upon.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Dead wife
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While she is in some ways a driving force in the film, that role more accurately falls upon her son, in which case absolutely none.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: Literally none-she's dead the entire movie, and as a result only exists in his own flashbacks and premonitions, so this isn't really an option for her.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Not even close.  Nakehk'o has the only named female character, and she gets one line that is used toward a man.

Film: Room
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Brie Larson and Joan Allen)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: For the third time this year, we have a film where a female character (in this case Larson's Joy) is the main character.  Joan Allen plays her mother.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Joy's a central part of the conclusion, and the final moments of the film actually return to her narrative, even if we always see the film through Jack's eyes (except in the last moment where Joy has to contemplate what Room was to her).  Allen's role is largely ancillary to the final conclusion of the film.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: This is a complicated question, especially since by limits of geography Joy doesn't have a role outside the main character but she frequently has to deal with troubles that don't involve Jack, and has to sort through her own mental issues after her breakdown during the interview.  Joan Allen's character also has a boyfriend and has dealt with relationships apart from Joy and Jack, so I'd also count her as a yes here.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes, the film has multiple scenes between Joy and Joan Allen's Nancy, including discussions of their relationship and the trauma of the kidnapping.

Film: Spotlight
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Rachel McAdams)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: I'm going to assume here that Keaton is considered the main character, even though he's not top-billed, in which case her relationship is employee of him.  This is more of an ensemble piece, though, so it's hard to say.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's definitely a part of the finale, waiting and answering calls and playing a crucial role in the writing of the Catholic priest/pedophile story.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: A lot has been made about McAdams' Oscar nomination and how the role she's playing feels pretty lackadaisical or that she's merely playing "the girl," but it's worth noting that she does have a life outside of the main characters, as her home life and relationship with her family/faith is also discussed in the picture, so I'd say this is a definitive "yes."
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: It's questionable.  McAdams' Sacha does have a conversation with her grandmother about her story, but her grandmother is never given a name other than "Nana" so I don't know that that counts under the rules of the Bechdel Test.  You can decide in the comments below.

And speaking of, there are the eight Best Pictures.  All-in-all, probably not where we'd need to go (it's still be nice to hit 50/50 and to have all passes for the Bechdel Test) but a decided improvement over last year.  Share your thoughts on the Best Picture race and favorite female character moments in them below!

The Globes' Category Fraud Mic Drop

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association yesterday threw one of the bigger wrenches in a while into the Oscar race.  The voters behind the Golden Globes, arguably the most significant film award not to feature a shiny gold man decided that Rooney Mara (Carol) and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), two of Oscar's frontrunners for a Best Supporting Actress nomination, were actually leads in their respective films and would be considered as such at the Oscars.  Considering the press that being a Golden Globe nominee elicits, and that Globe nominations happen prior to AMPAS voting, it made me wonder what effect this would have on the Supporting Actress race at the Oscars.

This is a pretty big deal, in terms of awards season, and seems to be in response to a years-in-the-making push against category fraud.  While category fraud (where lead performances are marketed as supporting performances in hopes of bettering a film/actor's chances at a nomination) has been around for decades, a backlash happened in particular in 2007 when Casey Affleck, the title character and most significant person in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was cited in supporting despite the most screentime and the crux of the story's plot centering on his character.  Since then, we've seen a bit of a backlash when actors market clearly leading performances in the supporting category, and occasionally we've seen the Academy reject this out-of-hand (see Kate Winslet in 2008's The Reader, where she won supporting trophies at the Globes and SAG Awards before competing in lead at the Oscars).  This year there was an uproar amongst Oscar pundits when it was announced that Vikander and Mara, who are considered by most people who have seen their pictures as above-the-title characters, would still campaign as supporting and it appears that HFPA is having none of it.

The Academy isn't bound by Globes decisions, or even campaign decisions, as Kate Winslet illustrates above, and so this doesn't necessarily doom Vikander and Mara in the supporting races.  Catherine Zeta-Jones, notably, was nominated for Best Actress for Chicago at the Globes and still went on to win the Oscar in the supporting field that year.  However, this sort of category confusion occasionally has major effects on the Oscar race, most notably in 2003.  That year Scarlett Johansson was cited for leading actress for both Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring at the Golden Globes, but her campaign for Lost in Translation (considering its Oscar haul, clearly the more likely candidate that year) greedily switched to supporting at the last minute despite her being a main character, and as a result almost assuredly cost her a nomination in what was a very chaotic Best Actress race.  Vikander and Mara's campaigns may look at the Globes, and wonder if being in lead at the Globes and supporting at the SAG Awards would hurt their campaigns and just end up changing at the last minute in a move similar to Ian McKellen a few years back for The Lord of the Rings (which paid off nicely-McKellen won an Oscar nomination in the process).

If Vikander and Mara either aren't in the Oscar conversation due to losing out on their nominations or they move to lead, the entire Supporting Actress race kind of turns on its head.  Both of these women are considered significant frontrunners for the trophy (particularly Vikander) at this juncture, and taking them out would give us no real obvious contender for the win.  While it's questionable whether or not either would make Lead Actress (Mara specifically could have issues there considering her costar Cate Blanchett is also a contender), Supporting Actress would be thrown into a bit of pandemonium.  Assuming that certain random names like Rachel Weisz (Youth), Phylicia Rashad (Creed), and Helen Mirren (Trumbo) don't pop up, there are essentially eight additional names that seem to be amongst the nominees for Supporting Actress in a world without Vikander/Mara; these women are Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Joan Allen (Room), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Diane Ladd (Joy), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Elizabeth Banks (Love & Mercy), Julie Walters (Brooklyn), and Jane Fonda (Youth).

Looking at these women there are clearly names that will have a better shot at a nomination (Winslet, McAdams) than others (Ladd, Walters), but the race seems relatively open amongst these women as none of them are ironclad at the moment and I wouldn't say any is guaranteed.  You can take someone like McAdams (who is the only female in a likely male-driven Best Picture nomination, which is usually a solid way to get noticed), and remember that she's never been in Oscar contention before, and this theory falters occasionally (see Vera Farmiga in The Departed or Margot Robbie in The Wolf of Wall Street).  The same goes for the rest: Kate Winslet is in a movie that flopped, Julie Walters and Elizabeth Banks are in tiny films, Joan Allen and Jane Fonda have small roles that could be ignored, and Diane Ladd/Jennifer Jason Leigh are in pictures no one's seen yet, so we have no clue on their actual feasibility.  All-in-all, these eight could make for a (hopefully) madcap spread-the-wealth year if we can't have category fraud.

And of course, there's the question of the winner.  Winslet's won recently and hasn't really done anything since to deserve a second trophy, Fonda's won twice and is in a slim role, Walters/Ladd/Leigh/Allen are all actresses with long pedigreed careers but no one thinks of them as "destined for Oscar" anymore (even though admittedly no one thought that about Patricia Arquette until last year), and McAdams, probably the nominal frontrunner in a field like this, isn't getting the standout raves for Spotlight that the male players are and has never been in Oscar contention previously.  All-in-all, if the Globes (thankfully) have broken back the tide of category fraud this year, we could have a truly exciting race amongst the supporting ladies.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

Happy November everyone!  If you're like me, you needed this weekend not just because of all of the joys of having some time off, but also because, quite frankly, this week exhausted the crap out of me (in a good way), and I need some down time to recharge.  One of my favorite ways to recharge is, of course, learning more about the world, and what better way to do that than exploring around the internet?  Let's take a look, shall we:

In Entertainment...

-Glenn Dunks over at the Film Experience went through an interesting exercise this past week, looking into why Cinderella isn't getting the same sort of Oscar attention as The Martian considering both are critically-acclaimed, feature an Oscar-winning performer at their center with an easily nominatable performance, and both were hugely popular hits.  While I think the reasons that Cinderella isn't competing are obvious both in a clearly sexist way (certainly unfairly, but Matt Damon's penis causes him to have more "serious film" credentials in the eyes of older, male Academy members-just look at how rare it is for a female-driven hit to actually make it to the Oscars, and even then it's only in dramas like The Blind Side or The Help), there's also a couple of less-sexist aspects going here at least, principally that Disney is not great at Oscar campaigns and that Ridley Scott is an Academy favorite.  Still, I am curious to see how both films turn out with Oscar, with Martian supporters a bit more manic about its chances than most (it's not winning Best Picture!), while Cinderella has Patrick Doyle, Dante Ferretti, and Sandy Powell behind the camera clamoring for another chance with Oscar.

-In a nod to increased need for public safety after the shootings in Lafayette and Aurora, Cinemark and AMC are both banning simulated guns and masks at the new Stars Wars movie, and reiterated that this is an overall policy and not just for the very-high profile Lucasfilm production.  As a result, you can get your Princess Leia hair buns on, but Chewbacca is not in-the-cards.  While fans have expressed outrage, this seems like the right decision in the wake of public safety concerns.  I love it when people dress up for premieres (I've done it a few times and always had more fun with the crowd), but there is a public concern about these sorts of midnight openings, particularly considering that the Aurora shooter (I stand with Megyn Kelly on this one-not saying his name) used his costume to hide firearms.

-Tom Hanks was honored at Outfest this past week, and pointed out a glaring truth about his work in Philadelphia (and no, it's not that he should have given his award to Liam Neeson), that the film actually came a bit too late.  It's interesting still to see Hanks' feted not only for his bravery in portraying a gay man (which, admittedly was true for a star of his stature at the time), but because it took until 1993 before a truly significant movie about the HIV crisis, which had been ravaging the gay community for over a decade at that point, crossed into the zeitgeist.  It's also of note that Hanks is winning another high-profile award because I can't get a gage on his Bridge of Spies Oscar chances-after his dual snubs for Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks, is AMPAS over the beloved two-time Oscar winner, or does he have a shot for this Steven Spielberg drama (and quite frankly, does Spielberg?)?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

In Politics...

Indianapolis Mayor-Elect Joe Hogsett (D-IN)

-Even fifteen years later, the 2000 presidential election still elicits incredible reactions from both sides of the aisle and CNN did a marvelous job looking at the ways that the election could have turned out.  The report finds that generally the recount, the way that the Gore camp was pushing for it, likely would have resulted in a victory for then-Gov. Bush, but that going with undervotes and overvotes would have landed the Vice President in office.  It also rather boldly points out that more people in Florida almost certainly went out on Election Day wanting to vote for Gore, something that still incites ire in Democrats everywhere who want the four years they feel they should have won back. While I am very much one of those Democrats, what fascinates me in part about this race still is that, at the time, no one really wanted their candidate to win with a fiery passion.  After candidates who became wildly popular with their parties like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Al Gore were "ehh" sort of choices, likely due to their backgrounds (Ivy League-educated sons of wealthy, patrician politicians).  However, in the months and years that followed, Democrats in particular have worn that election as a battle scar, something to be trotted out as the ultimate in "unfair" whenever a Republican brings up pretty much any race as being biased.

-Speaking of Democrats and rough elections, if you're still reeling from this past Tuesday like I am, you might want to check out this rundown of the elections Democrats actually did win.  While I knew about the elections in Pennsylvania and the Grimes/Beshear wins in Kentucky, the Indianapolis victory for the Democrats (winning back the mayor's office and the City Council from the Republicans) and the victory for Jennifer Roberts in the open Charlotte mayoral election both were off my radar.  While new Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett is a well-known perpetual candidate (he'd lost three high-profile elections in the state since his last victory in 1990 as Secretary of State), and may be a risky bet for higher office, considering the purple-nature of North Carolina and the critical role Charlotte plays in Democratic turnout, Jennifer Roberts (who actually ran for Congress in 2012 and lost a close race) may be a name we hear more about in a future statewide run.

-Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert had his portrait removed from the Speaker's Lobby by new Speaker Paul Ryan this week amidst a guilty plea by Hastert that he was paying hush money.  It's an interesting conundrum for historians in the Capitol, as well as one that's a bit eyebrow-raising since Hastert gets to keep his pension (you only lose your pension if you committed a crime while you were in office, rather than before or after, according to what I've read).  While this obviously seems the appropriate choice from a pragmatic standpoint, one wonders if the Capitol and the surrounding historical buildings should coverup their seedier past as a way to show future generations the error of the past's mistakes.  It's never a great idea to discard the aspects of history that are unpleasant for worry that they may be repeated, but it opens up the question of whether the Capitol is in some fashions a museum (in which case Hastert's portrait should stay up) or should it be a representation of America at its best (in which case Hastert clearly should be dismissed).  Either way former Massachusetts Senator Frederick Gillett, who had a six-year term as Speaker of the House, certainly gained here as he took Hastert's spot in the Lobby some 100 years after his tenure.

-Finishing off our political articles this week is this piece from Politico which talks about the unlikely event of the U.S. House being won back by the Democrats.  While the author is pretty open that the odds are just above zero, the combination of the rises of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, in conjunction with where they are popular is interesting, as Trump/Carson are popular in places where the Democratic roadmap to a theoretical House majority wouldn't cross, but less popular in suburbs and exurbs, where the Democrats will likely have to be victorious if they want to win the House again.  Places like suburban Philadelphia, the Twin Cities, Greater New York, and suburban Denver, all locations with Republican-held House seats, could be more vulnerable to a poor showing by the Republican nominee in those areas than places like rural Alabama and West Virginia, places Trump or Carson are more likely to outperform.  It's an interesting read even if it's a longshot proposition.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-Nic Hoult will see you now.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-Kate Winslet and Julie Walters share their awards show histories, which is delightful because who doesn't love Kate and Julie?  Also, Michael Fassbender is there, which makes everything better:

Just One More...

-Normally this last link is related to environmentalism or adventuring, but this week I was actually struck by a Washington Post link about the increasing deaths of middle-aged white men.  It's an interesting phenomenon where mental illness (particularly depression and alcoholism) has increased the death rate in this demographic while almost all other death rates have seen a decrease.  Definitely worth a read.

Paddington (2015)

Film: Paddington (2015)
Stars: Ben Whishaw, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Madeleine Harris, Samuel Joslin, Julie Walters, Nicole Kidman, Jim Broadbent
Director: Paul King
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

While my childhood was filled with books in every corner of the house and bedtime, Michael Bond's stories about a bear named Paddington never reached my ears.  Perhaps they were a bit too British, or perhaps it was because my mother's love of Judy Blume and CS Lewis precluded her from investigating these tales, but I was wholly unfamiliar with the Paddington series, other than the bear's iconic hat and blue coat, when I popped in a DVD of the film yesterday evening.  As a result, my only real interactions with the series were two bizarre contradictions: the initial trailers for the film, which looked egregiously bad, to the point of blaspheming on the beloved children's tale, and the reviews, which were almost universally adulatory to the point of nearing 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.  These two contradictions intrigued me enough to ensure Paddington was seen before the end of the year, and as luck would have it rose to the top of my queue more quickly than I anticipated.

(Spoilers Ahead) The question now, of course, is if I liked the movie, which I did.  Not having been familiar with the stories I don't know if we are seeing a carbon copy or a complete misread of the books, but the film has a hearty glow of English loveliness to it.  It's hardly groundbreaking entertainment, but that doesn't have to happen every film (not everyone is Richard Linklater or Terrence Malick), and there's really no falseness to it.  In a world where we feel like every cartoon or childhood character has to be hip or modern, Paddington feels very authentically at home in a different era.  This is the sort of film like Matilda or Babe in the 1990's that children could cling to without any parental worry about cynicism.  Just a love for a bear in a coat.

Part of this is achieved through a series of simple, but always genuine, interactions with Paddington and both his aunt/uncle as well as his adopted family the Browns.  The film isn't shy about relying a bit on cliches to establish the characters, principally the children who get very little to do in the movie, but it has the good sense to hire actors who are aware of this books place in British lore and who give this film respect and not treat it like a paycheck (which oftentimes feels the case with children's movies, let's be honest).  Sally Hawkins has a warmth as Mrs. Brown that is undeniable, but also keeps her character very real, as does Hugh Bonneville as her nervous husband.  Best of all is Nicole Kidman as a scheming taxidermist, off to restore her family's honor by putting Paddington on the mantlepiece.  Kidman, who has a cool elegance that lends itself well to a movie villain, occasionally hams it up but by-and-large she stays within the universe of Paddington, letting the bear stay the star even when her charisma and role could steal the film from beneath his paws.

The weirdest thing about the film, quite frankly, is that the trailer showed arguably the worst scenes.  There's a gross-out sequence with a toothbrush followed by an implausible situation with bathroom plumbing that was the highlight of the trailer, but really this is the lowest moment of the film and the only toilet-bowl scene (quite literally, in fact).  The rest of the movie is leisurely, investing time in side characters but particularly in making Paddington himself a well-rounded individual, and all-in-all it's an adorable little film.  Like I said above-this isn't rocket science here, but simplicity is hard when it's done well and without dullness, and Paddington and his lovely charms surely reach that point.

There you have it-I debated between three and four stars and went with the former just because I don't love the film even if I admire it (it isn't in my heart like Matilda or Babe, admittedly), but I surely would recommend it to anyone, particularly anyone with children, and wouldn't begrudge someone giving it that extra star (I'd be part of the 98% Fresh ratings on Rotten Tomatoes if I were part of that community).  In the meantime, though, please share your thoughts on this movie-were you a fan?  Did you skip it due to the trailer but are coming back due to the ratings?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Finding the Magic in the Harry Potter Movies

I love the Harry Potter movies.  Love, love, love.  It's one of those situations where as a blogger I know that I cannot remain even the remotest bit objective, and so I figured on this totally arbitrary day (I'm going to be honest-I didn't get a chance to write the larger post I was expecting because I was out too late last night), I decided to randomly finish a giant Harry Potter post I did a while back but for a different site but has never seen the light of day here.  Enjoy (and obviously spoilers abound, but if you haven't seen the Harry Potter films yet, you are the biggest of muggles)!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Review: It’s a bit odd, all-things-considered, to revisit the very beginnings of Hogwarts. Even if you are just stumbling across it for the first time, entering the magical world of Harry Potter seems utterly familiar-you would have had to been locked in Azkaban prison for the last decade to not know the tale of the Boy Who Lived. And yet, there are still wonderful things to uncover in this slightly by-the-numbers, but ultimately rewarding first outing. The actors may be mere children (try being born before 1987 and not feeling dauntingly older by watching this movie), but they have the moxie and charm that would become their trademarks, and not even Chris Columbus’s limp direction can stifle the creative magic of Jo Rowling’s best moments-the streets of Diagon Alley, Hogwarts letters sprouting out of thin air, and a Sorting Hat who knows a thing or two about the future.
Best Moment: Ollivander’s, by a country mile-John Hurt gives a giddy and just a teensy bit wicked performance as the wandmaster who helps Harry choose his destiny.
Worst Moment: Ron’s heavy-handed speech before being blown off a horse during chess-so out of character.
Film MVP: Daniel Radcliffe, who manages to bring a wonderful and celebrated literary character to life, despite being unable to drive a car.
Totally Arbitrary Harry Potter-themed Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d give it a Nimbus 2001-it’s faster than other models, but you know there’s something better ahead.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Review: The second, and thankfully last film from Chris Columbus, who didn’t find an emotionally cloying moment he didn’t spread across ten minutes of film. This is the least of the Harry Potter films, which is like saying it’s your worst visit to Disneyland-you may not get to ride the Matterhorn, but you can still enjoy the ambience. There are, however, moments to love about this film-primarily, Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh delivering their characters of Lucius and Gilderoy (sneering malevolence and pompous certitude, respectively) with eleven shades of scenery-chewing (that doesn’t sound great, but it works in a film this shoot-for-the-moon). And of course, Jo Rowling gives us a strong showdown between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter that will overshadow the film’s weaker moments.
Best Moment: Moaning Myrtle-such a snide and spoiled ghost she turned out to be, and it gives the Hogwarts Trio all of their best lines.
Worst Moment: The ending-Hagrid getting a standing ovation? Ludicrously out-of-character for all but the Gryffindor house.
Film MVP: Jason Isaacs, who on second viewing is obviously making a completely different film than the rest of the cast (he would be even better in 2003’s Peter Pan-rent it now, for the love of hippogriffs!)
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s the film equivalent of Gilderoy Lockhart’s Magical Me-obviously entertaining and sometimes engaging, but clearly there’s some falsity below the surface.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Review: Ahh, now this is more like it. Alfonso Cuaron is the best director to ever cast his spell over Rowling’s universe, and this is perhaps the best (though, amongst the don't-stray-from-the-books fans, the most controversial) film of the series. It certainly captures the transition between childhood and adolescence with a clearer picture than almost any film out there. From the choir of singing students (and toads) to the Lewis Carroll acid trip of the Knight Bus to the delicious sarcasm that rings from every line that Emma Watson utters, this is the only film in the series that would stand on its own-if there were no other tales of Hogwarts, Azkaban would ensure it were a clever legend. Mischief managed, indeed.
Best Moment: I’ve always had a strong fondness for the scene where Harry fights the Boggarts with Professor Lupin. It may not be the flashiest in the flick, but it’s quiet wonder and the sheer joy of overcoming a small obstacle is perhaps the closest any of the movies came to capturing the tiny moments that made us love the novels.
Worst Moment: Daniel Radcliffe is many things, but a decent crier (at least in this movie) he is not.
Film MVP: I’d give it a tie between David Thewlis, whose reserved Professor Lupin gets better on repeat viewing, and Watson, who comes into her own with the help of some delicious dialogue.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a Patronus-light but strong, and it creates a sort of spell that only a few special people can muster-movie magic.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Review: If HP directors were James Bond actors (go with me here), Alfonso Cuaron would obviously be the suave Sean Connery, David Yates would be the dependable Roger Moore, Chris Columbus would be the miscast Timothy Dalton, which may leave poor Mike Newell as George Lazenby-solid, perhaps even worthy on occasion, but only given one chance to shine and then be replaced. Goblet is Newell’s only film in the series, and he is given the rather difficult task of making sense of Rowling’s most “jumbled” (I say that with love) book. He mostly succeeds, particularly in capturing teen angst and its sheer awkwardness and unfairness (come on, it must have been REALLY difficult growing up looking like Robert Pattinson) in the best moments of the film, even if he sometimes loses us in the bog of too-many-new-characters plotline. In particular, though, he gives David Yates a much freer palette to paint the final four films from-a nice transition from the traditionalism of Columbus and the out-there, could only make it through one film brilliance of Cuaron. By letting Harry grow up, he allows Yates to shake and stir the characters.
Best Moment: The Yule Ball-didn’t you want a song called “Dance Like a Hippogriff” at your Prom?
Worst Moment: The plot transitions-for those not familiar with the books, this is the jumpiest and probably most confusing editing in the series.
Film MVP: Brendan Gleeson gets all the good lines and steals all his scenes, but I have to go with Gambon, all wisdom and worry.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s a bag of Bertie Bott’s-some sweet, some bitter, but overall an experience worth the galleons you shelled out to see it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Review: I’m going to be honest-there are times when the last three books seem to blend. And there are moments when I’m a little floored that they cut perhaps my favorite moment in this book, when Petunia gets her howler (never, in all seven books of reading, have I ever been so intrigued by one moment in the book). But that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a wickedly wild ride. We begin the first of the four David Yates films with the creepiest moment at the Dursleys, and are scuttled into the world of a doubting Ministry and character assassinations for political gain. Harry and the gang are truly excellent in this film, as Yates takes the time to flesh out characters like Neville and the daffy Luna Lovegood. Of course, Yates can’t take credit for the single best performance in any of the HP films thusfar, that of the pink sadist Delores Unbridge, ably played by Academy Award nominee (sadly not for this movie) Imelda Staunton (I say with much certainty that even in 2007’s cinematic excellence, she should have won the Oscar). With her, Harry finally gets a villain worth fighting against, and we get a straight-forward blast of a blockbuster.
Best Moment: Umbridge & Harry in detention-the film wouldn’t have worked if we didn’t hate Umbridge so fiercely.
Worst Moment: The Snape Occlumency lessons-so crucial and important in the book, and yet too glossed over in the movie.
Film MVP: Staunton, who gives every little “hmm” and “ahem” a cruel undertone that few other actors could have managed.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a nice pint of Butterbeer-warm and refreshing, with just enough of a kick to know it’s working.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Review: The even numbered books in the series were always, in my opinion, slightly less than the odd numbered ones that preceded them. So it is a little odd to say that this film is better than the one before it. Even without the cruel Delores Umbridge, we are still given a wild ride, and perhaps even a little peak into some of the characters who have until now been just “versions” of themselves from the books. Michael Gambon gives Albus Dumbledore a stronger and more fleshed out personality, and Jim Broadbent is absolutely brilliant as the status-minded Horace Slughorn. As this is the Hogwarts Trio’s final year at Hogwarts, it is fitting that we get a bit more teenage angst (though Yates doesn’t quite understand it as well as Mike Newell), and we also get a tear-inducing ending. The film also gives one of the most terrifying moments of the series thusfar (though HP7 would equal it with the snake-eating teacher) with Tom Riddle asking about horcruxes. All-in-all, this is perhaps the only film in the series that, while not the equal of the book, sewed together some of the pieces of where the book lagged. 

Best Moment: I kind of want to go with anything Broadbent did (seriously, between Thewlis, Staunton, and Broadbent, this series should have three acting Oscar nominations), but I have settle on his devastating monoluge about fish.
Worst Moment: Not to be cruel, but who was the casting director who hired the Lavender Brown actress?
Film MVP: Broadbent, such a weary traveler in the world of magic.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a veela-you know there’s something about it that you justifiably love, if at times you’re being too kind to its flaws.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010)

Review: I’ll never be 100% certain that they made the right decision splitting this movie into two. I mean, they used to make 4 hour movies-and wouldn’t that have been seismically epic? However, I shouldn’t let that stymie this admirable production. As the film series goes along, the movies become more polished, a bit more manufactured, and while they are consistently strong, they sometimes lose the childlike wonder of something like Azkaban. That said, this film has three distinctly perfect scenes-the opening, particularly Hermione erasing her parents memories, the hearing (the final stand of Delores), and finally the tale of the three brothers, an indy touch to a highly mainstream movie. These three scenes together make it one of the best films in the series, and the fact that we have now made the leap to three capable, competent actors proves that the casting director a decade ago knew exactly what they were doing when they called the names Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson off the call list.

Best Moment: As I mentioned above, I have three, but if I had to pick, it’s those opening scenes, where all of them slowly cast their spells and ward away childhood.
Worst Moment: The Oscars totally ruined “the tiny ball of light” moment for me.
Film MVP: With no teachers to steal the scenes, and Rickman/Fiennes sadly relegated to the backburner, I’d say it’s a threeway tie between the Hogwarts Trio, who all use their big moments in the film to shine hard.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s an invisibility cloak-not too flashy, but substantive when it needs to be and it hits just the right balance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)

Review: And so it all ends, not with a bang, but with the most iconic castle outside the Magic Kingdom being blown to smithereens. That’s right people-if you were hoping that there’d be some top notch special effects in this film, you’ll be in for a treat. Then again, if you’re like me, hoping for the quiet moments throughout the film, you’ll get them, particularly in the first half. Yates was kind enough to give us some of the brilliant moments with Maggie Smith (one of two times I think I may have cheered in the movie) and Kelly McDonald (the gloriously melancholy Grey Lady). And of course, this film wouldn’t have been complete without Julie Walters taking out Helena Bonham Carter in pure style. I am glad, however, that Yates stuck most closely with the Hogwarts Trio in this one-all three of them had grown into young adults before the eyes of the world, and as this film proves, they’ve grown into fine actors as well. A fitting close to a wild ride of a series.

Best Moment: A tough one for me-the obvious choice would be Julie Walters taking down HBC (seriously-when I read that in the book, I knew that was going to be one of my favorite moments in the movie), but I really loved the walk in white with Dumbledore and (my ultimate choice for best scene in the picture) Maggie Smith’s taking charge.
Worst Moment: If I cheat, it would be that I didn’t see Dan take out the Carows in defense of Professor McGonagall. However, I’d probably go with the choppy transition at the beginning of the film.
Film MVP: Radcliffe or Smith-both of them made every moment they had onscreen count, and still added levels to their characters.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s the first ride on the Hogwarts Express-thrilling, new while still familiar, a bit mysterious, and full of wonder.