OVP: Supporting Actress (2017)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2017)

The Nominees Were...

Mary J. Blige, Mudbound

Allison Janney, I, Tonya

Lesley Manville, Phantom Thread

Laurie Metcalf, Lady Bird

Octavia Spencer, The Shape of Water

My Thoughts: Best Supporting Actress of 2017 is the rare lineup that actually features five supporting performances.  Usually when I judge the supporting categories I will dock a star off of my ratings if a performance is clearly lead just to level the playing field, and in the 2010's this has become as common as "slow news day" jokes on Twitter, but 2017 blessedly gives us five performances from true character actors (well, four character actors and a hip-hop icon) and all of them are judged solely on their merits, not having to adjust the grading scale.

We'll start with Octavia Spencer, the only one of these women who had been nominated prior to 2017.  Spencer has adopted the guise of a modern-day Thelma Ritter, frequently getting cast as some version of the same role (though Ma and Luce show that she's stretching & indulging her acting muscles with this newfound celebrity).  This works so well in The Shape of Water.  She takes what could be a trope (the Black best friend to the white protagonist), and fleshes it out, giving the role a warmth and depth that honestly no other supporting character in the movie has, and to Spencer's credit, isn't entirely in the script.  A true actress who understands her director's vision, but also knows how to lift it when it's slacking.

Allison Janney costarred with Spencer in her Oscar-winning role in The Help, and is another actress who has spent much of the past twenty years elevating everything she's in (though Janney's work has been more so in television).  Janney is a blast in I, Tonya, totally owning every inch of this movie, and it's hard to begrudge an actress this good (who based on every interview she or her coworker's have ever done, seems to be a genuinely nice person offscreen) a win.  I will quibble, though, in saying that most of her work is surface-level.  Splendid surface-level, but up against a couple of her co-nominees who are doing more work, it's hard not to think Janney should've done more.  Particularly from an actress as good as she is, this is a bit like giving Maggie Smith her Oscar for Best Exotic Marigold Hotel instead of Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

One of those nominees is another sitcom veteran, Laurie Metcalf.  Metcalf has not had the lead work in TV that Janney has, but has been synonymous with a certain kind of frazzled aunt/mom/coworker for most of her career.  But Metcalf is a brilliant actress, and she owns this role as a mom stuck as both the breadwinner & the one with the most foresight in her household.  There's so much depth-of-feeling in the way that she clearly adores children & being a mom, even if Lady Bird drives her into consternation (look at the way she gets over-excited about every baby in the film, perhaps the only time she seems to genuinely lighten her metaphorical burden).  Metcalf makes an easy part complicated & real.

The same can be said for Lesley Manville in Phantom Thread.  In a perfect world this would be Manville's second Oscar nomination (she was unreal in Another Year seven years prior, and got my silver medal in this category that year), and it's worlds apart from her work with Mike Leigh.  The way that she has to deal with her egotistical, ridiculous brother, manipulating him to always get his way, frequently without him realizing how she's in charge, is breathtaking.  Think of the scene where they're having breakfast and he tries to "handle" her before she breaks the facade, wanting to let him know exactly how much she will not be taken for granted...it's specific, delicate character work that adds dimensions to the movie's best performance.

Our final nominee is Mary J. Blige, which is the one performance in this lineup that I didn't get.  Blige's character work might've worked in a better movie.  Playing a Black woman who is forced to take care of another woman's children even though she doesn't want to...there's a lot there.  But Blige doesn't flesh out her character, and though this is an angle that might work (as written, her Florence isn't a woman that would ever let her guard down), it hurts the story, which is so reliant on Florence being something more than just the sturdy backbone of her family.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes favored Janney, besting Metcalf, Blige, Spencer, & Hong Chau (Downsizing), while SAG went the most against Oscar's type by picking Janney, but only keeping Metcalf & Blige for Oscar, adding in Chau & Holly Hunter (The Big Sick).  BAFTA added Manville to the mix, with she, Metcalf, Spencer, & Kristin Scott Thomas (Darkest Hour) all losing to Allison Janney (I'll say this in probably all four acting write-ups, but the lockstep races for all of the acting prizes made 2017's ceremony one of the dullest in a while).  In terms of sixth place, I predicted both Chau & Hunter at the time (I assumed Blige's limited screentime & the at-the-time new advent of Netflix in the Oscar race wouldn't sell, and no one saw the Phantom Thread love-in coming this far out).  Either of these women (or honestly, Tiffany Haddish in Girls Trip) would make sense, but I'm going to guess it was Hunter that was in sixth place given The Big Sick got in for writing while Downsizing missed everywhere.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I for sure would've included Hunter.  Holly Hunter is one of our best screen actors, always good, but that doesn't mean we should ignore when she takes a prickly character, fleshes her out, and manages to in the process give us one of the 2010's best rom-com's, an increasingly tough genre to navigate.

Oscar’s Choice: It was an easy call for Janney, who dominated all season & who always felt like the kind of actress who would eventually win an Oscar.

My Choice: I will go with Metcalf over Manville, as she has the tougher part to land & has more dimension (both will be showing up next week when we get to whom I would've picked for the nominees, though).  Following them is Spencer, Janney, & Blige.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you joining me with Team Lady Bird or are you still enamored with Janney & that bird?  Where do you think Octavia Spencer's long run with AMPAS will end (can she come close to Thelma Ritter's unparalleled six nominations)?  And was it Chau, Haddish, or Hunter in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2017: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2017

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019

OVP: Onward (2020)

Film: Onward (2020)
Stars: Tom Holland, Chris Pratt, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Octavia Spencer
Director: Dan Scanlon
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

We're continuing on the week with movies released this year with what was supposed to be the first film I saw that was (calendar-year) released in 2020 in theaters.  I had plans to go to this movie, but right around the time of when I was going to catch it (February is a busy time at my job), Covid broke out, and suddenly I was petrified to go to any movies, and quickly they shut down.  As a result, Onward joins a very select list of Pixar films that I did not see originally in theaters (which is a bummer, though not as much of a bummer as other things...you know, we're allowed to have a gamut of disappointments from the valid to the vapid through all of this).  Either way, this movie is now on Disney+ and so I caught it and can weigh in on the latest from the Mouse House's cool kid brother.

(Spoilers Ahead) We live in a modern-day world where the convenience of technology has made magic, once a centerpiece of this realm, commonplace, even though our main characters are elves and we frequently encounter throughout the film creatures of myth.  The main characters are Ian (Holland) and Barley Lightfoot (Pratt), who are raised by a single mother Laurel (Louis-Dreyfus).  Their father died many years earlier, before Ian was born, and on Ian's sixteenth birthday, he encounters a spell that his father had left him as a present, allowing him the opportunity to see his father again for one day if he can break the spell.  However, while Ian figures out the spell, his overzealous older brother Barley goofs it up, so that only his father's legs return.  The two start out on a quest to bring back their father for the full day, knowing that there's a ticking clock on if Ian will get to have the reunion with his father he always dreamed of having.

Onward isn't a great movie, and it's probably one that would've been a bit of a disappointment in general for Pixar even if it hadn't been for Covid totally tanking the box office (I think, ultimately, it would have won back enough to be a modest hit internationally, but wouldn't remotely approach the recent box office of Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4, or even an original like Coco.  This is partially because the film does lack a lot of mojo and world-building.  We're given a fairy tale, really Pixar's first foray into territory that Disney had already perfected, and they don't really know how to bring the magic to the movie.  The film's mid-section is repetitive and a bit confusing, not utilizing ace hires Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer enough for what could have been great side bits (Spencer plays a manticore restauranteur).  It's not bad, and it's fun throughout, but this isn't really what we've come to expect from a Pixar original-even in the age of the sequels being more-and-more disappointing, the originals have by-and-large kept their original sheen.

That is, except for the ending.  Onward finishes in a better place than virtually any movie I've seen compared to the rest of the film than any picture I've seen in a while.  The ending doesn't go for the easy tears of a joyful momentary reunion between Ian and his father, but instead underlines that Barley was the father figure that Ian needed most, but in exchange Barley never really got to say goodbye to the only father figure he had ever known.  As a result, when a situation with a golem-like figure precludes them both from going forward to see their father, Ian sacrifices his big moment with his dad to let Barley go and say goodbye to the man he'd never properly let go of; it's a beautiful, unexpected ending to a film that probably hasn't earned such a big payoff, but you aren't going to care because you'll be crying throughout.  I don't do half stars on this blog, and so this is getting a 3-star since the movie earned it, but it's a high 3-star, bordering on four, just because of how beautiful the finale ends up being to a fair picture.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2016)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2016)

The Nominees Were...

Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

My Thoughts: All right, we're getting back into our regular Monday & Wednesday articles for OVP ballots today, and where last we left off, we were heading into one of my favorite categories, Best Supporting Actress.  2016's acting races were perhaps the first warning sign that the expanded Best Picture field was truly starting to cause laziness in the Oscars, as you can see here most plainly-every single one of these women are nominated for films that were cited for the top prize.  We're going to do something we rarely do in these write-ups since I'm getting back into the swing of them, and start with the victor since we don't have a lot of other things distinguishing the contest.

Viola Davis is an extraordinary actor, and one who definitely deserved to win an Oscar at some point in her career, but I do question the film she won it for.  For starters, this is a lead performance-you can quibble & fret all you want about this being Troy's story, but it's really the story of Troy & Rose's marriage, and she should have gone lead (I honestly think she might have still won Best Actress in such a field).  So knock off a star for category fraud, as well as for not really transitioning this to the big screen.  Davis & Washington are exceptional, and this must have been a helluva show at the Cort, but on the big screen they don't feel authentic or real enough for my taste-there's not enough modulation, especially compared to what Stephen Henderson is doing.  Davis is great in some of her quieter moments, particularly when she and Washington discuss his love child & lord knows the woman can deliver a monologue, but I'll be honest-this is the least of Davis' three nominated performances for me, and I wish she'd have won for either of the other films instead (she took both OVP's).

Davis' The Help costar would soon tie her record for most-nomiated black actress in 2017, but here she is getting a role that on-paper feels like a slam dunk for Octavia Spencer.  She plays her Dorothy with determination, and though obviously based on a real person, it is a role that feels like it was written with Spencer in-mind.  That said, she still lands it, and finds ways to modulate the work to make sure that it fits.  Look at the subtle ways she makes Dorothy's confidence ebb-and-flow depending on who is in the room (though it's always there in her posture and dialogue), or the killer way she dresses down Kirsten Dunst without it ever feeling like a screenplay ploy.  Spencer is oftentimes taken for granted, but adding richness and warmth to a movie is a rare skill, and should be appreciated-Hidden Figures is the better for her appearing in it.

The same cannot be said for Nicole Kidman, who by most definitions is a world-class actress who definitely should be sitting on more Oscar nominations than she currently has.  I don't think that she handles her "white savior" role with enough delicacy and realism-there's not enough of her complicated relationship with Mantosh, and it feels glossed over to keep the movie bright and "universal" for audience members who look more like Kidman than Dev Patel.  Kidman is too good of an actress to totally fail-she finds some humanity in her relationship with Sunny, but it's not enough, and is one of the drawbacks to the film's weaker second half.

Naomie Harris is the only actor who appears in all three parts of the Moonlight triptych, and thus gets arguably the most difficult task in the film-finding ways to connect with three different actors with a similar (but not too similar) chemistry, while also showing a woman who has moved & struggled through her life.  Harris nails this-the accent is spot-on, and I loved the way we initially view her as a competent, harried mother, and once we learn the secrets of her behavior toward her son, we can never unseen that, even in later scenes where she desperately wants for us (and Chiron) to unsee what we've experienced.  Harris is spectacular, finding a woman increasingly marginalized by her son and society, using what little power she has to try to find her way into both, and then when she realizes the damage she's done, understanding that she can't change the past.

Our final nominee is Michelle Williams, who compared to some of the competition is practically giving a cameo in Manchester by the Sea (one of the reasons I dock a "star" for category fraud is that it's simply unfair that Williams has to compete with Davis, who is in an hour more movie than Williams is).  I am a big fan of Williams, but have found her leaning too much in the "less is less" category of acting in recent years, taking her minimalism too for granted.  So imagine me surprised when she shows up and just knocks her Randi out of the park.  The early scenes where she's a stressed mother, normal, relatable, are matched by the plastic sheen she brings to later scenes.  Affleck couldn't get past what happened to their family-he has to force himself to live with it over-and-over.  Williams chose the opposite approach-cutting every tie she had to that person she used to be in hopes that it would save her from drowning in reality.  Look at that scene where she asks him to lunch, and how she can barely handle even that moment, understanding it might mean finding closure in a moment she can't physically acknowledge, and the anguish of knowing that she can't put back together the man she once loved.  Williams is sensational in this part.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes weirdly went for a carbon copy of the Oscars, something they had not done since 1996 (and that year was cheating, as the HFPA went with six nominations instead of Oscar's five due to a tie).  SAG did the same thing, and Viola Davis won both, indicating a shocking lack of creativity when it came to this field that year.  BAFTA also went for Davis, but at least they found a new name, throwing out Spencer in favor of Hayley Squires in I, Daniel Blake.  In terms of sixth place, it's hard to tell with such uniformity.  Other names being bandied about at the time were Greta Gerwig (20th Century Women), Molly Shannon (Other People), Lily Gladstone (Certain Women), and Janelle Monae (Hidden Figures), the latter being my guess considering that was the one movie that proved popular with Oscar, even if Gladstone got the LAFCA trophy.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Overall, this isn't a bad lineup-there's a reason there was so much uniformity in the precursors-this was a relatively light year for great supporting actress performances.  That said, I surely would have included Monae, who wasn't just awesome in Hidden Figures, announcing herself as a proper movie star, but also in her small role in Moonlight.  I also would have found time for Dakota Johnson, whose nymph in A Bigger Splash is fascinating character work, and kind of announced her as an actress to watch.

Oscar’s Choice: Category fraud, yes, but it's probably better for the world that Viola Davis has an Oscar.

My Choice: A pretty close race for me between Harris & Williams.  I'm going to go with Harris in a slight nod over Williams if only because it's a more difficult part to get across in such a short time frame.  Following them would be Spencer, Davis, and then Kidman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Pretty much everyone went with Davis, so I assume I'm in the minority by picking Harris-or does someone want to join me on Team Moonlight?  Why do you think there was so much uniformity when it came to this category from precursors?  And who do you think was the sixth place finisher of this field-with so few names in the mix, I'm curious who you think nearly made it?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2016: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2016

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Luce (2019)

Film: Luce (2019)
Stars: Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, Kelvin Harrison, Jr., Tim Roth
Director: Julius Onah
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Is anyone else struggling with finding the quality films of 2019?  I have been trying (largely in vain) in the past few days to get to a couple more 2019 movies, particularly arthouse films that are under-the-radar in hopes of getting some stronger year-end honors, especially in acting categories.  Considering the trailers were eerie, and that Octavia Spencer is one of my favorite actors working right now, Luce felt about as good of a reason to go to the movies as I had thought, but about two-thirds of the way into the movie, I realized that I was watching a movie that I didn't really know how it was going to end...and not in a good way.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Luce (Harrison), an all-star athlete who is supposed to be 17 but could only pass for such on Dawson's Creek (Harrison is a handsome man, but is 25 in real life and that's about how old he looks in this movie).  He seems to have the perfect life-wealthy parents, a great track career, exemplary grades...the kind of kid you want to root for, and the fact that he grew up in a war zone and overcame such obstacles makes everyone in his world, particularly the white authority figures at school go out-of-their-way to encourage him.  The only person who doesn't seem to celebrate Luce is his teacher Harriet Wilson (Spencer), a single woman who teaches him history and is disturbed by Luce writing a paper where he has to take on the characteristics of an historic figure, and he chooses one who advocates violence.  Harriet brings this to Luce's mother Amy (Watts), who at first thinks that Harriet is over-reacting, but then starts to reconsider as she begins to navigate the son she might not know as well as she thought.

The film deals with a lot of major issues, and this is arguably what attracted such impressive talent (Spencer, Roth, & Watts are all Oscar nominees, after all) to the picture, but it's also the film's downfall.  The movie tries to function under-the-guise of a thriller, but in doing so it makes the depictions onscreen problematic, and frequently going into the intensely offensive.  The movie has subplots that include having a black woman, playing someone struggling with mental illness, storm nude into a school (she's the sister of Spencer's Harriet) as a way of trying to bring down Harriet, and it's largely implied that Luce is helping to instigate this humiliation...yet the nudity and humiliation feed little plot purpose.  Later in the film, we see a young woman who may well have been sexually-assaulted (the film isn't clear here), but also lies about her assault as a way to discredit Harriet, all while trying to help Luce gain points on her.

As a result, we are left with a film that heavily implies that a woman will lie about her own assault just to take down another woman to help her boyfriend, and that a couple of white parents will destroy the life of an innocent woman of color while also letting another woman of color bear the burden for a sexual assault that, if it happened, almost certainly involved their son.  And we're not really supposed to care too much about either of those two actions if we also buy the movie's final moments.  The film tries to have it both ways, making us challenge our assumptions about what we think about Luce, but also making him almost certainly do things that we would universally consider to be bad (without punishment).  The film ends with Luce running, potentially feeling either relief or joy for having removed Harriet from his life and letting unspoken realities of his home life (where his father, at the very least, didn't really want him) surface, but I just left thinking this was a spaghetti-against-the-wall strategy-where you throw in enough social issues that the audience gets confused into thinking they're watching an important issue film when in reality they're just watching squandered talent pitch a movie whose script makes little sense.  Spencer & Harrison are both good in their roles (Spencer gets a part that's very atypical to what she's usually thrown, and aces it), but it's hard to recommend either of them when a movie is such a giant, borderline-offensive mess.

OVP: The Shape of Water (2017)

Film: The Shape of Water (2017)
Stars: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, Octavia Spencer
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Oscar History: 13 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture*, Director*, Actress-Sally Hawkins, Supporting Actor-Richard Jenkins, Supporting Actress-Octavia Spencer, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Original Score*, Production Design*, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

My relationship with Guillermo del Toro is not uncomplicated.  The first film I ever saw of his was Pan's Labyrinth more than a decade ago, and I loved it.  It was one of my favorite movies of 2006, and I remember being in awe of the magical realism of the picture, and the way that it engaged an enchanting fairy tale with a grim reality in Franco's Spain.  But the years since have worn on this relationship.  I thought the Hellboy movies were mediocre at best, frequently trading on the "I'm a freak, but I'm beautiful" message a little bit too hard.  Crimson Peak was what used to be called a "hot mess," and Pacific Rim's most important contribution to cinema was this.  As a result, I went into his most critically-lauded picture since Pan's Labyrinth with some modulated trepidation.  The trailer was beautiful, the actors in it felt like they would fit del Toro's world but not be overwhelmed by it, and I was ready after a hard year to invest a bit more fully in a complicated fairy tale.  Unfortunately, while it's lovely to look at and has its moments, The Shape of Water continues the trend of movies I'm more indifferent to than swept away by when it comes to del Toro's cinematic output.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers upon Elisa (Hawkins), a mute janitor in the 1960's, working at a secret research facility at the height of the Cold War.  She lives a staid life, marked by routine (polishing shoes, hard-boiled eggs for lunch, and because this is a del Toro film, morning masturbation in the bathtub) and quiet friendships with her aging gay neighbor Giles (Jenkins) and her fellow, chatty janitor friend Zelda (Spencer).  One day, a new creature, played by Doug Jones (kind of similar to what a mermaid would be if it were 50% fish, 50% human, but if it was your whole body), is brought in by a sadistic colonel (Shannon), who takes a perverse shine to Elisa and enjoys torturing the creature.  The film unfolds with Elisa falling in love with the creature, trying to free him while the colonel is out to destroy him, and increasingly dominate her.

The movie functions as yet another strange fairy tale, and like most of del Toro's films, there are moments of visual splendor that are undeniable.  The magical realism is occasionally ridiculous (that entire sequence where they're floating in the bathroom defied physics in a way nothing else in the film does), but it's lovely to look at, and the sunset scenes are gorgeous.  The movie, though, suffers from too much plot, and performances that are all-over-the-map (okay, just Michael Shannon).  As the colonel, an actor who is rare on subtlety (and really has an imposing physical demeanor that doesn't allow for such things), his increasingly manic portrayal of a deranged and unhinged colonel is too much for even a film that suspends reality so frequently, and toward the end his cartoonish villainy has totally subsumed the picture.  Combined with a confusing performance from Michael Stuhlbarg (who can blame this more on the screenwriters, who make his motives nearly impossible to discover and his character resolution is left bloody on a pile of sand...literally), the film's plot is too sloppy for my tastes.

The rest of the performances fare better.  Spencer is such a winning screen presence she fares the best with this complicated material, giving Zelda a worn warmth that I responded toward.  Hawkins is getting the lion's share of the plaudits, but while it's a physically demanding role, I have to admit I wasn't as drawn to this work as I suspected I would be.  Her character is interesting, but she doesn't sink in the way you'd expect during the tougher scenes, particularly when she goes quickly from self-sufficiency and self-pity and back again.  And with all due respect, Richard Jenkins is not convincing as a gay man.  His plot is equally tragic to Elisa's, perhaps more so because he's left with nothing in the end of the film, but the script doesn't really care about that, and it feels an awful lot like the "sassy gay friend" trope in a film that has a pretty strong queer narrative otherwise.

All-in-all, I left unimpressed even if there's obviously something fascinating there.  Del Toro's going to continue to demand my ticket money if only because his visuals are too interesting for me to skip out (plus, he may well be headed to his "Oscar-friendly" phase after The Shape of Water), but I think that if this film can't get me to amour once again, I doubt I ever will for anything other than Pan's Labyrinth from his creative mind.

10 Random Thoughts on the Golden Globe Nominations

Well, it's officially Oscar season, people, as the Golden Globes have issued their proclamations this morning, much to the delight and chagrin of pretty much everyone on the internet (there's always something to love and something to hate here).  I wanted to share my Top 10 thoughts on the film citations (the Globes are cray when it comes to TV and their bizarre category designations, though I'm surprised that Anthony Hopkins didn't get in for Westworld considering he has a significant role and he's so famous, usually prerequisite for such things).  Without further adieu, here are the ten things that stick out to me in particular about this year's Globe nods...

1. Mel Gibson is Back?

Okay, I know that 2016 is very, well, heinous and we shouldn't really say the phrase "did anyone actually expect?" anymore, but Mel Gibson is palatable in Hollywood again?  Really?  I mean, considering the rhetoric coming from PEOTUS you'd think that awards season would be shouting down Gibson to send a message to the world, even if the movie is good (haven't seen it yet, though the plan is to head there tomorrow), but he's factored both here and the BFCA's, and even won a Best Director citation over Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Ben Affleck, and Denzel Washington.  The Globes are more inclined to celebrity nominees (Clint won this award before he was even nominated at AMPAS), but Gibson has now done well at two major precursors to the Oscars.  I think Hacksaw Ridge is a nominee for Best Picture at this point, and Gibson is at least in the Top 7 for directing.

2. Is Sully Done?

A different conservative icon with a long history with awards season didn't fare quite as well, however: Clint Eastwood's Sully ended up completely absent from this morning's announcement.  While I'd like to think this is due to the film being terrible, I am curious why Mel and not Clint, particularly considering people forgave Eastwood quickly in 2012 after the RNC while Gibson has stayed a pariah to the point where he's barely made a movie in the past decade.  Eastwood's absence here is deeply telling, and more so Tom Hanks, whom everyone genuinely loves, not being able to score against underdogs like Viggo Mortensen and Joel Edgerton probably spells the end of his quest once again for a sixth nomination.  Hanks bizarre lack of awards love in the past few years despite ample titles that deserved the nominations (I, for one, gladly would have included him for Saving Mr. Banks), continues to be a head-scratcher for me.

3. Is Best Actor Done?

If Hanks is actually out (I could still see him resurfacing, but probably not), I wonder if we might have our five actors ready and available now, as there aren't many contenders to wrestle with here.  I personally think Ryan Gosling is headed to a win in Comedy/Musical, and should be able to transpose his spot in the Best Picture frontrunner into a nomination, but that means he has to bump someone in Best Actor in a Drama.  Of those five nominees, Washington, Affleck, and Garfield seem pretty set (all feel like nominees), which leaves either Edgerton or Mortensen to be snubbed.  My gut is saying that Edgerton will be done and that the edgier Mortensen sneaks in for AMPAS.  It's possible, of course, that Edgerton stampedes or that Hanks scores with SAG resurrecting his campaign or some Oscar pet (Matthew McConaughey, perhaps?) gets in at the last minute, but part of me thinks this might be settled on five actors already.

4. Best Actress-7 Women Enter...

Best Actress is also starting to solidify (in a year with fewer major populist films, the slates tend to settle pretty quickly), and I think we're looking at five of the following seven women being nominees: Ruth Negga, Isabelle Huppert, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Emma Stone, Natalie Portman, and Annette Bening.

Who gets snubbed is pretty much anyone's guess, but more and more I'm starting to think that this could be Bening and Negga that end up on the fuzzy end of the lollipop.  Negga's nomination, for example, is for a relative unknown in a film that relies on you noticing the subtle, which is going to be hard against showier work from Huppert.  With Bening, the problem is more along the lines of-will people see this movie in time?  It's a comedy that is getting solid reviews, but not to name-check Saving Mr. Banks again, but anyone else getting an Emma Thompson vibe here?  Longtime headliner gets a comedic comeback, and yet she gets bested by more recent Oscar pets Streep and Adams?  I mean, the similarities are all there, and while Thompson has an Oscar (and Bening doesn't, which makes her nomination more urgent), I think you underestimate Adams and Streep at your own risk.

5. Lily Collins-are you kidding me?

Nothing from yesterday morning, nothing, however made me eyeroll with ridiculousness more than seeing Lily Collins truly awful work in Rules Don't Apply get nominated.  I'll admit that I was half-expecting Warren Beatty to make it, him being an icon and all (I no longer think he has a shot at the Oscar nod, for the record, as he needed this to stay in the conversation), but Collins instead is just indefensible.  She's so bad in this movie, not to mention she's not even a famous actress, which would normally be what causes a situation like this.  The Globes actually had decent work from far-more-recognizable actors that they could have gone with here (Kate Beckinsale in Love & Friendship, Sally Field in Hello My Name is Doris), or at least could have gone with a headliner in a hit comedy (Melissa McCarthy in Ghostbusters, Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones), but to go with Collins-I can't even.

6. Supporting Actor-So, Where is this Headed?

I have been a strong defender of Supporting Actor this year, arguably the best field of the race, and have said I wanted some off-the-beaten path nominations, which the Globes delivered.  Alongside expected nominees Jeff Bridges, Dev Patel, and Mahershala Ali, we had the murderous sociopath of Nocturnal Animals Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Simon Helberg's terrible work in Florence Foster Jenkins.  Both are now part of the conversation, but this poses a challenging question of the morning for each film and their campaigns.

After all, now both films have two legitimate threats for the Best Supporting Actor field, as Hugh Grant (category fraud didn't apply today, as he was in lead for FFJ) and Michael Shannon (the one who got the lion's share of praise for Nocturnal and whose dogged determination to be in ten movies this year felt like something AMPAS might acknowledge) are also in the running, and the un-nominated ones are actually more likely to make it than the Globes' cited performances, which is rare.  The last time a film had one actor nominated for the Globes in Supporting Actor and then a different actor with Oscar was 1994 with Quiz Show (John Turturro for the Globes, Paul Scofield for the Oscars).  If these actors split the vote enough, it could lead to a different actor who wasn't part of the conversation at all yesterday morning (Lucas Hedges in Manchester by the Sea, perhaps?) getting in at their expense.

7. Octavia vs. Greta

While you could argue that Nicole Kidman getting in was default Globes stuff, it's a weak year here and everyone expects Kidman to make it into the race as it continues.  That likely means the quartet of Kidman/Harris/Davis/Williams is headed to a nomination, which leaves one more slot to be divided between two women: Octavia Spencer and Greta Gerwig.

I was starting to wonder whether or not Spencer would show in the race-after all, she missed entirely for Fruitvale Station, which I'll state was my favorite Supporting Actress performance of 2013, but she bested Gerwig here and that might be enough to get her Oscar's final slot.  Gerwig could still get in for SAG, and if enough people see the film this could transform, but Gerwig's miss is telling.  For one, Spencer made it despite Gerwig being a former nominee herself (Frances Ha a few years ago, in a big surprise), and her film made it into Best Picture and Best Actress, two categories Spencer's movie couldn't land despite a campaign for both.  That means there's support for Spencer, who has a showy role in a film that looks like it'll be a hit, rather than just people not having heard of Gerwig.  Spencer is also charming in interviews and will work for the nomination in a way, that, say, Michelle Williams might not have were she the fifth place position.  This could change (Gerwig could make it with SAG tomorrow, keeping her in the game), but Spencer scored a critical win this morning.

8. Nocturnal Animals-Globes Pet or Real Threat?

Every year there's at least one film that the Globes go gaga for that randomly doesn't factor anywhere else in the year.  This year, I am wondering if that might be the stylish, mega-star noir Nocturnal Animals.  Critics were mixed on the film, but it still managed a trio of nominations this morning (you have to assume it was darn near Best Picture).  It's stylish, and driven by a celebrity (Tom Ford got in for Best Director), but is it too much for AMPAS?  It's hard to imagine people making it three minutes into their screeners considering the opening credits, much less all the way through a very dark, violent, and cold thriller.  Still, the Globes did it a favor in terms of its FYC ads, and Ford wants to be taken seriously as a film artist-you know he'll work for it.

9. Is Justin Timberlake Going to be an Oscar nominee?

Argh-really?  I had to put up with Lady Gaga's terrible acting eventually lending itself to an Oscar citation-is Timberlake's terrible acting going to do the same thing?  Unless AMPAS goes gaga for one of the original musicals, nominating two songs, I'm thinking this tune's insane popularity all summer is going to be too much for Oscar to ignore.

10. Is Finding Dory lost?

It's very, very rare for the HFPA to go for a foreign language film in this category, and if it was going to, I half-expected it to be The Red Turtle.  Therefore My Life as a Zucchini getting in alongside Zootopia, Kubo, Moana, and Sing was wildly shocking.  It also was particularly eyebrow-worthy because this is only the second time ever (an even higher percentage than with AMPAS) that a Pixar film missed out here, Finding Dory.  Dory is still the highest-grossing domestic film of 2016, but its ho-hum reaction from critics and fans has left it at the edges of the Oscar conversation.  Oscar has never gone for a Disney film in Animated Feature without it also scoring a Globe citation-my gut says this isn't going to be the year to break that record, and instead we'll have a fourway battle between Red Turtle, Your Name, Zucchini, and Sing for Oscar's final two slots.

OVP: Zootopia (2016)

Film: Zootopia (2016)
Stars: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, JK Simmons, Tommy Chong, Octavia Spencer, Jenny Slate, Shakira
Director: Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Animated Feature*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Can we all just agree that the marketing campaign for Zootopia, was, well, terrible?  I mean, the worst.  When I first saw the film's commercial, with a bunny and a wisecracking fox getting into easy jokes with a sloth, I figured this was the moment when Disney, usually a cut-above, devolved into being nothing more than a psuedo-Dreamworks, something that used to be beautiful and now had become, well, generic.  And yet, Zootopia is anything but a simple Dreamworks picture; it is instead focused on attacking prejudice and having a truly fascinating discussion with its younger audience about the implications of acceptance and prejudice in our society.  It's extremely timely and also shockingly political for a studio that as a general rule tries to stay just left of center in its overall political tone.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Judy Hopps (Goodwin), a spunky rabbit who wants to become the first "prey" animal to be a police officer in Zootopia.  For you see, this is a world where lamb and wolf, rabbit and fox, gazelle and lion, they all live in harmony without anyone having to worry about being eaten (the film is never quite clear on what it is the predators eat aside from donuts and sugary cereal, but that's a discussion for the inevitable sequel).  Judy, though, faces scorn from her fellow cops who view her as a token hire, someone that was brought in to make the police department look more inclusive.  As a result, she gets a job as a meter maid, giving out tickets all around town.

By circumstance, she ends up being assigned a task to look for a missing otter, and is joined up (through coercion) by a wily fox who helps her through the seedier parts of the town.  As the film progresses, her initial prejudice against the fox (as there is, amongst her rural family, a fear that erupts toward foxes and other predators) turns into friendship, but when it turns out that the predators are "going wild" she spouts off some hateful speech that causes the predators in the community to be unjustly attacked and causes great fear and panic.  Even her friendship with Nick the Fox (Bateman) sours, as the film goes on, until (like all good Disney films) we learn that there is a logical explanation for the crime, and predator working with prey, they find out the true culprit just in time for everyone to go to a Shakira concert (she's a gazelle in the film, and is joined by a series of gay, dancing muscular tigers).

The film's politics are not subtle, but this is a children's film so it's not like they should be.  It's relatively obvious to draw some of the parallels between the predator community in the film and racial minorities in today's culture, and the way that prejudice hurts society at large when we spread falsehoods that have no substantiation in fact.  It seems kind of kismet considering the time that it requires to make an animated film that Disney was able to make this movie happen the same year that a racist zealot is running for president with a frightening amount of success.  It's kind of stunning, quite frankly, that I haven't been hearing FOX News reports every night about the liberal dangers of letting your kids watch Zootopia.  Perhaps even they see the danger of Trump at this point.

The film functions well outside of just being a morality tale.  The world-building is extraordinary, some of the best I've seen in years.  Zootopia, clearly a proxy for New York City, is rich in its detail and distinctive sets to the point that if this was a live-action film, we'd have already given the movie the Best Production Design Oscar.  The mystery, while eventually it becomes obvious who is behind the crimes, stays an enigma long enough to be lauded for an animated feature.  And the vocal cast is uniformly good, even Jason Bateman of whom I have a sharp allergy, partially because the only stunt-casting is Shakira, and she's essentially playing herself as a gazelle.

The movie is not without faults, of course.  For a film that tries to defy prejudice, it relies on a few stereotypes to get its point across (slow slothes, procreative bunnies, sneaky weasels), that might deter its message slightly (it shouldn't just be Judy striking out), and there is still the problem with the animal metaphor rather than using actual humans (because unlike the real world, there is still the inherent reality that a real-life rabbit should, in fact, be scared of a real-life fox or wolf), but these are minor quibbles for one of the most surprising efforts to come out of the Mouse House in a long time.  Considering Frozen and Zootopia are recent entries there and Pixar seems incapable of making anything but sequels for the next few years, one wonders if John Lasseter has truly accomplished a role reversal?  We shall see-Finding Dory and Moana come out later this year.

Until then, share your thoughts on Zootopia, and its proudly political stance.  Are you a fan of the movie, or were you turned off by its marketing campaign?  What do you think are its Oscar/sequel chances?  Share your opinions in the comments!

5 Lessons from This Past TV Season

With all but one of the major shows announced as of today, we can start taking some lessons from this past season of television.  While we won't know for a few more months what shows will be hits and what shows will be flops, we can tell you some of the lessons from and advice we'd like to give the Big 5 networks after this past season.

1. RIP: The Sitcom

In what has to have been one of the biggest stories of the year, sitcoms continued to watch their ranks close and we had less-and-less hits.  Outside of ABC, only two traditional sitcoms (Last Man on Earth and The Odd Couple) got renewed for another season, and we saw long-time series like Two and a Half Men and Parks and Recreation adios from the schedule.  This isn't just a problem for the networks, but for TV stations like TV Land, TBS, and dozens of other cable channels that rely on syndicated network sitcoms to be hits.  Even shows that seem on-track to hit the mandatory 100 episodes (like New Girl and 2 Broke Girls) aren't the hits they were years ago and may not hold onto audiences long-term in the way that Friends and Seinfeld have.  It's gotten so bad that NBC, once they home of Must See TV and the quintessential sitcom factory, will only have one-hour of sitcoms next season.

2. ABC Goes Cable

The cable model has been emulated in some quarters, though it hasn't quite been something the major networks want to emulate because they don't have the constant movies of HBO/Netflix or the persistent reruns of something like USA.  However, ABC has embraced the shortened season, with series like Secrets and Lies, American Crime, and Agent Carter all getting second seasons after short runs that may have been one-and-done sorts of situations.  This is something that has created buzz on networks like HBO and Showtime, and is probably something we'll see more of because you get more content without as much risk.  Then again, it's not a guaranteed success: Gracepoint was critically-acclaimed on FOX and had a slew of buzz before it completely tanked.

3. Diversity is Key

If you look at the biggest critical and/or ratings hits of the year, racial diversity was a crucial attribute of the cast.  Arguably the year's two biggest zeitgeist hits (Empire and How to Get Away with Murder) hired Oscar-nominated actresses as the center of their shows, and got HUGE ratings that will probably result in Emmy nominations for both Taraji P. Henson and Viola Davis.  This sort of diversity sets apart the cast in a way that few other shows do (can you tell apart the sitcoms on CBS that aren't Big Bang?).  Similarly shows like Jane the Virgin and Black-ish delivered strong enough ratings and buzz to return to their networks lineups.  About the only prestige-drama that didn't take starring a black Oscar nominee was oddly Octavia Spencer and Red Band Society.  If I were a network, though, I'd be trying to get she or Lupita Nyong'o on one of my channels, as Empire and How to Get Away with Murder are both proof that television, unlike the movies, seems to be more inviting of non-traditional leading stars.

4. A Hit is a Hit is a Hit

Debra Messing's The Mysteries of Laura was mocked since the show was announced.  We had yet another cop procedural starring a former TV headliner, and the critics were jumping over themselves for a chance to insult the series.  Despite this fact, the show gained solid ratings and though pundits consistently tried to write its obituary, NBC didn't really care as long as the numbers stayed good, and they did.  Mysteries was the only new show on the network to get renewed.  The same could be said for CBS with Tea Leoni's Madam Secretary, a show that underwhelmed the critics but brought in strong ratings, and resulted in an easy pickup for a series that most figured would get lost on the schedule.

5. FOX is on Life Support

They smartly put American Idol to bed, even though in FOX's lineup it probably still made sense, ratings-wise.  The Mindy Project, a critically-applauded but viewer-challenged series got bumped off the schedule.  In fact the network despite the occasional bright spots (obviously Empire, as well as Gotham and Last Man on Earth) saw a bunch of high-profile series like Mulaney, Red Band Society, and The Following all flame out this season, and even a show like New Girl continues to be more renewed out of a need for a long-running sitcom than anything else.  The network needs to either pull an NBC and embrace its identity whole-heartedly (going entirely to a drama lineup with only a couple exceptions) or find a way to make a live-action sitcom a hit again.

Those were my lessons-how about you?  Where do you see broadcast primetime going, and what are you happy/sad about getting renewed or cancelled?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

87th Academy Awards: The Good, the Indifferent, the Bad, and the Ugly

Well, we're officially done with the Oscars for the year.  I will probably pipe in on Tuesday with some of the thoughts on the fashion, once I get to see all of the fashion, and we're six films away from the OVP write-ups where you'll get to know a bit more about what I would pick, but for now I'm going to just go with my reactions to the show itself.  I'll try to limit myself to no thoughts (one way or the other) on the winners as I am saving those for the OVP (it's always Oscar season at The Many Rantings of John) and because I've been discussing those for months.  As we do here, here's my Good, Indifferent, Bad, and Ugly of the 87th Academy Awards.

The Good

-Literally every year, the Oscar producers forget that rather than wanting to see the host or the fashion or even the winners, the audience really want to see movie stars in their natural habitat.  And every year my favorite moments are the off-the-cuff moments with celebrities.  Like Benedict Cumberbatch's brilliant reaction shots or Jessica Chastain cooing "Chivo" when Emmanuel Lubezki won or (my personal favorite, seen above) Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez reacting to the equal pay speech from Patricia Arquette in what has to be the most gif-able moment of the ceremony when they didn't know the camera was on-these are the best moments of the ceremony. Perhaps no one was better at this than Felicity Jones, who had a hot mic incident ("they've won a lot, haven't they?"), a Julie Andrews fan girl moment, and the random realization that she was applauding for herself.  Here's to hoping that Ms. Jones is invited back soon as either a presenter or a nominee, as she was the unsung MVP of last night's ceremony.

-I love when the Oscars get political.  Millions of people are watching, so it's time to have something to say, and boy did Hollywood have something to say.  From advocating for women's rights (Patricia Arquette may have brought a piece of paper with, but that's only because she had something to say, damn it haters!) to the brilliant calls for more mental and physical health awareness to calls for tolerance toward immigrants, it was a night of important messages and I was most pleased.  I also loved the trend of the documentary and short subject contenders who shut up the orchestra by starting to talk about something serious the second the music started, hence lengthening their speeches.  Just in general, 45 seconds isn't long enough-it's a long show, people can get used to it.  If you're desperate about people not being able to stay up late due to work the next day, put it on a Saturday or on HBO so you don't have to worry about commercials.

-Two truly random things I loved: one, the commercials were excellent this year.  For all of the talk about the Super Bowl being the crown jewel of advertising, the Oscars continually get innovative, oftentimes funny, and frequently moving commercials.  And this is officially bumped to this spot because after watching it four times I finally realized it was Robert Redford voicing that Comcast commercial (I could not place that voice for the life of me!).  Secondly, I skipped the red carpet this year, and loved it.  It was refreshing to see the gowns and outfits for the first time onstage and I didn't have to endure talented artists like Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep reduced to a designer label and inane questions about their dieting traditions.

-The interactive set was gorgeous-please keep this next year.

The Indifferent

-I loved the idea of interviewing the seat fillers (I actually think this could have been something that was done throughout the night), but the Steve Carell joke fell flat.  Perhaps Carell isn't a comedian who is funny off-the-cuff, but I feel like the punchline got botched and may have been better-served with a more improvisational personality like Will Ferrell.

-It was a smart decision to go with Travolta and Idina to present-it was a major moment last year, and trying to bottle car-crash lightning in a bottle a second time was worth the risk.  But what was with the face-holding John-seriously?  Couldn't they have just stuck with the easy but funny pablam instead?

-I am not going to get into the quality of the winners, but I will say that while Graham Moore's speech was nice for The Imitation Game and extremely moving and he's ridiculously adorable and I now have a crush on him and what is his Instagram account because there are like 40,000 Graham Moore's, I felt like it was the same one Dustin Lance Black did six years ago.  Why not try to stumble a new barrier for gay people rather than the tired "kid living with a dream one."  Perhaps want more realistic representations of gay people onscreen rather than gay-in-name-only performances like Benedict Cumberbatch in...oh, wait, I see the problem now.

The Bad

-I haven't really been discussing Neil Patrick Harris too much because, well, it was just okay.  There were some lines that were absolutely aces (the best being the JK Simmons/Farmers Insurance jingle and the brilliant Birdman/Whiplash parody), but by-and-large it was slightly underwhelming.  A lot of energy got sucked out of the room when Harris got too schmaltzy in the opening with a poorly-timed musical number that was identical in spirit to one he did at the Tony Awards a few years back (the music was too fast to catch all of the jokes...and there weren't enough jokes to begin with), and in hindsight they should have gone with a monologue, as so much of Hollywood got left on the table this past year (did anyone even bring up Sony/The Interview?!?).

-I ask this every single year, but can we cut the In Memoriam song number?  Jennifer Hudson is a brilliant vocalist and frequently the best reason to watch an awards show, but honestly it was such a yawn and this has never been a particularly stirring addition to the ceremony.  I'm fine with the show being super long, but if there's a portion of it begging to get cut, it's not the Shorts categories-it's the In Memoriam song.

-Speaking of musical performances, as wonderful as Common and John Legend were, it felt a little bit too weighted to them.  Everyone and his mother knew they were winning that Oscar, but couldn't they have made it a little bit more suspenseful.  It felt like they spent all of the budget on that number and "Everything is Awesome" and left the other three songs to sort of rot there.  Even the camera and sound crews felt like they sort of forgot how to do their jobs during Tim McGraw's weird constant wide shots and Adam Levine's vocals getting drowned out by the instruments.  Admittedly Legend and Common may have been the only ones to show up to rehearsals (we're dealing with temperamental stars here), but it felt like the TLC wasn't properly spread.

The Ugly

-Neil Patrick Harris, as I mentioned above, was uneven, but one bit clearly was a dud: the idiotic ballot prediction schtick.  This was wrong for a number of reasons.  For starters, it felt like Octavia Spencer, who is frequently very funny in interviews, was caught off-guard by it and she probably should have been looped in beforehand to maybe nail a joke or two.  Secondly, it was the only moment in the film where Harris's famous gravitation toward narcissism in his humor (my chief worry when he was selected) was indulged (most of the audience probably isn't aware of his penchant for magic, both at the show and at home).  And the jokes were kind of duds (plus, he does this every year at the Tonys, so it's tired for awards show hounds).

-While I can't recall a particularly strong presenter (am I blanking here, or was there someone who was particularly funny-the show seriously needed a Will Ferrell or Kristin Wiig or Bette Midler to show up), the worst was Terence Howard.  My brother postulated that perhaps the teleprompter broke (which I hope someone can confirm as that would bump this up to merely bad), but if it wasn't then Howard needs to keep it together.  Presenters are not supposed to have favorites when they are giving out awards, and he clearly felt less enthused about Whiplash than The Imitation Game and Selma.  It was one of those truly cringe-worthy TV moments.

-Did they really play The Bodyguard theme for Viola Davis?  Really?!?

-I am sure I'm going to be in the minority here as she sounded great, but what was the point of the Lady Gaga tribute?  She has no real connection to the movies and isn't what you'd call a particularly popular singer at the moment (her star has fallen enough that she probably couldn't get a solo performance at the Grammys at this point), so why was she called upon for The Sound of Music tribute?  Get someone like Anna Kendrick or Anne Hathaway or Emily Blunt (or hell, all three) to do it-someone who is actually a vibrant musical force in movies today.  And speaking of The Sound of Music...

-Why bring out Sean Penn to present Best Picture when Julie Andrews is clearly who should have done it?  She's better at presenting, she has the Best Picture history thing, and she doesn't feel the need to make presenting about herself (Penn is a brilliant, talented actor but he's a narcissist and a curmudgeon as a celebrity, whereas Julie Andrews is practically perfect in every way).  Is it so wrong to have a woman present Best Picture?!?  Seriously Academy, a 50th Anniversary and a beloved Oscar winner is right there for the taking-what more do you need?!?

And those are my thoughts on last night-what are yours?  Share them below in the comments!

Snowpiercer (2014)

Film: Snowpiercer (2014)
Stars: Chris Evans, Song Kang-ho, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Ewen Bremner, Go Ah-sung, John Hurt, Ed Harris
Director: Bong Joon-ho
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Sometimes I watch independent films and wonder precisely why a major studio passed on this film.  This was certainly the case with Snowpiercer, a film I caught on DVD recently.  While watching it and its crazy, action-packed story, I couldn't help but wonder why precisely this film wasn't amongst this past summer's blockbuster pictures (and I don't mean that in a bad way).  It had a compelling but easy-to-follow narrative, a series of stunning visuals, name brand actors (I mean, if Captain America can't open a movie...), and very specific Science Fiction elements.  Put Christopher Nolan's name on this particular movie and you'd make half a billion dollars.  The fact that it disappeared with nary a thought earlier this year in American cinemas is one of several baffling questions posed by this film.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in 2031, seventeen years after an attempt to counteract global warming reacts disastrously with the earth's atmosphere, causing the entire planet to be in an ice age that largely makes all life on earth extinct.  The only living human beings on the planet are those on a train that, every single year, goes on a track that circumnavigates the globe.

Like so many cloistered societies (both cinematically and in real life), a caste system evolves that manipulates and mistreats those in the rear of the car.  They are treated like vermin, and eventually their leader Curtis (Evans) decides it is time to revolt.  Armed with his best friend Edgar (Bell) and a woman whose son was kidnapped by the elites of the ship (Spencer), they begin to push forward through the cars, trying to find the mystical conductor of the train Wilford (Harris).

The film is weirdly wonderful, and at its best when it's world-creating.  The concept of the train is fantastic, and I loved the way that every box in the train sort of had its own personality.  It sort of pushes the envelope on what you think you need to survive (some of these people have lived in a 100-foot radius for their entire life).  It also shows what happens when you impose horrible conditions on human beings-eventually a revolt will rise, and absolute power, while not necessarily corrupt, eventually becomes rusty and complacent.

The movie has strong performances across-the-board, though no one comes close to what Tilda Swinton is doing as Minister Mason.  Swinton, who has been on rapid-fire ever since she won her Oscar for Michael Clayton seven years ago, is epicly good in this movie.  I loved the way that she clearly is weak-willed, totally reliant upon others for her power, and yet there's something almost inhuman about her.  She's totally given herself over to Wilford, whom she may never have even met (I can't recall this, but it's very likely that she hasn't), and doesn't seem to have a legitimate question about her actions.  Like so many in a dictatorship, she doesn't question whether something is right or wrong, but just accepts that it's her job and that's a cover for it in the future.

The film has some serious logistical issues, it must be said.  If you give any sort of rational scientific thought to most of the things that are happening on the train you'd realize that, for example, the train has to go over oceans that were filled with water when the train was created or that the train would have to be going obscenely slow to only circle the planet once a year or, and this is the kicker about the ending, human beings will have to have more than two people to continue the species into the future (everyone dies in the end except for a young boy and a teenage girl, and they are forced out into the cold where they see a polar bear, which is supposed to signify life returning outside of the train though I don't know how long that life will survive with a hungry polar bear nearby).

The film also could have been longer, honestly (I know this was a bone of contention with Harvey Weinstein, but any edits were probably unnecessary as world-building takes time), and I think that may have fleshed out a bit more of the actual logistics of the train.  The acting is uniformly good, as I already mentioned, and I kind of liked the lack of proper character development outside of Curtis and Wilford, as it was easier to find your audience proxies in the railway car.  It also makes you value people as human beings-this is the end of the human race on that train, and frequently we see the bizarre spilling of very valuable life on the train and wonder how much longer this situation can sustain itself.  It's a movie that lends itself to multiple viewings, looking for clues to what has just happened you're so overwhelmed by the details (an Art Direction nomination would be most wise), and that's just what I'm looking for in a summer blockbuster.

While sadly the Weinsteins foolishly put it in limited release rather than creating what could have been a monster hit, you can and should still catch it on Netflix.  For those of you who have seen it, do you agree that this is a giant hit that got away?  What did you think of the craziness that Tilda Swinton brought to her role?  And was the polar bear a sign of hope or a sign that humanity was about to become breakfast?  Share in the comments!