OVP: Supporting Actress (2018)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2018)

The Nominees Were...

Amy Adams, Vice

Marina de Tavira, Roma

Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk

Emma Stone, The Favourite

Rachel Weisz, The Favourite

My Thoughts: Unlike Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress has some truly great performances in 2018 (the women definitely outshone the men in both lead & supporting in 2018).  The problem here, if we're going to call it one, is the reality of category fraud, which is a topic we discuss a lot on this blog (and they discuss virtually everywhere Oscar discussions happen online).  I tend to think of category fraud this way when it comes to the OVP-it's important to level the playing field a bit, so I remove one "star" from a five star rating if someone is committing category fraud to make it in this lineup, because otherwise it's not fair to those people playing in a smaller time slot.  However, I don't blanket refuse to give an award to a performance if, say, that bumps one nomination down to 4-stars and no one else is above a three (this has happened in a few races, like our 2005 & 2012 Supporting Actor fields)-category fraud performances can win, but they need to do so on a higher plane.

The reason I bring this up is that there is at least one surefire category fraud performance here, and debatably a second one.  The first that is obviously a lead is Emma Stone in The Favourite.  I'm not going to get into technical definitions of lead/supporting (while these can be fascinating, they also can border into the silly if you get too literal), but Stone is the lead in this movie-her story is central to the plot, even if Colman might reign as the queen.  So I'm taking a star off, which still puts Stone as one of the best performances in this lineup, because this is the best thing I've seen from her to date.  Her Abigail is spoiled, calculating, and as the film continues, truly amazing in the way she unfolds before our eyes.  It's terrific work from an actress who seems to be doing some of her most fascinating acting after she picked up her Oscar (which gives you the impression that she could well get a second one).

Her costar Rachel Weisz is a slightly different case.  I personally think this is a lead performance, though she doesn't have the screen-time that Stone or Colman do.  Sometimes movies have three leads, and her story is just as central as the others.  Normally for debatable performances I might toe-the-line & not knock down a star, but I don't quite see it that way here and am doing it for Weisz as well.  That's important to say again because Weisz is amazing in The Favourite.  This is some spellbinding work, playing someone who in some ways is similar to Abigail (ruthless, ambitious, greedy), but in other ways she has a different perspective (unlike Abigail, she cares about, perhaps even loves, the Queen but knows that to play such a hand would be to give a vulnerability she's not capable of).  Also, and I know this is an embarrassment of riches, but of the three women she's the best at delivering the film's delicious dialogue.

None of the other performances in the lineup are category fraud worries-the remaining ladies are 100% supporting performances.  The one who gives the Favourite ladies a run for her money is Regina King.  Her work in If Beale Street Could Talk is relegated to two major scenes in the movie, one with her daughter saying she's pregnant & the other in Puerto Rico.  The scene with her daughter, where she defends her child against the baby's other grandmother, is pure acting panache-great scenes, lines, & King aces it.  The Puerto Rico scenes are subtler, but they might be the more impressive achievement.  You see how her Sharon used to be, before she was a mother, the way that she still understands the appeal she once utilized to her advantage, the ease of a lifted veil when not assigned the responsibility of wife-and-mother.  It's technical wizardry from one of our best working actresses.

Amy Adams gets the best-written part in Vice, and probably the part that's the truest to life.  By all accounts Lynne Cheney, not her husband, was the "natural politician" and you see that in the way that Adams brings out her ambition from behind-the-curtain, knowing that she'd never be able to claim the mantle for herself because she was born at the wrong time.  But Adams can't explain why Lynne wants power, and that hurts the performance.  The problem with Vice is that McKay wants us to make these figures evil, but doesn't have the guts to just push that into "we're bad people" territory, thinking it's too easy of an answer.  But Adams' performance lacks that awareness, and it makes even the most ridiculous of scenes (like the infamous Shakespearean dialogue fourth-wall breaking) feel ludicrous, and not stylized.

Marina de Tavira is one of the most shocking nominations in recent history for this category, truly coming out of nowhere to get this nomination after no precursors (none) had paid attention to her.  She is solid in Roma-of the entire cast, which relies on naturalism, she's the professional actor of the bunch & it shows.  I don't buy that "newcomers are the best option" for vehicles like this (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't-we'll get into Yalitza Aparicio next week for my final thoughts), and De Tavira feels best-prepared to encounter some of the more literal aspects of Cuaron's class tale.  But she also isn't the focus, and it's not a daring performance or noteworthy one even if it's the best part in a great movie.  It's not her fault that she got upstaged by the water on the garage floor, because that's where Cuaron wants your attention...but she did get upstaged by it.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Regina King as their victor, and kept Oscar's lineup intact save for De Tavira (they went with Claire Foy in First Man instead).  SAG gave their trophy to Emily Blunt (A Quiet Place) of all people, mostly because they skipped both King & De Tavira (their other nominee was Margot Robbie in Mary Queen of Scots).  BAFTA also skipped both King & De Tavira, adding in Robbie & Foy, and here gave the trophy to Weisz, so a three-way split on the winners of the major precursors.  In terms of sixth place, I know that Foy, Blunt, & Robbie all have their acolytes here, but I honestly think it was Linda Cardellini in Green Book.  The film was very popular (it won Best Picture for a reason), she's in the "long-suffering wife" category, and De Tavira getting in makes me think that Oscar just wasn't feeling some of the other precursor options & was willing to go in a totally different direction.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: At some point we're going to need to see Ann Dowd get in with the Oscars.  She's been so good so often in the past decade we take it for granted, but the brilliant actress was once again marvelous as the enigmatic Joan in Hereditary, totally owning the screen.

Oscar’s Choice: Though the precursors were spread out pretty wide, I honestly think that King won by more than the range of winners would suggest-Weisz or maybe De Tavira could make a decent argument for second, but King's win feels like one of those JK Simmons/Allison Janney-style victories that happen where everyone's collectively like "oh, sure, she's great-let's make her an Oscar winner."

My Choice: I think there are three five-star performances in this lineup...and this is why I led with category fraud as an issue, because I'm going to give this to King as a result.  You'll see all three of these women in the My Ballot in two weeks, but the Favourite ladies will be in lead where they belong, and though Weisz (silver) and Stone (bronze) might be performances I like mildly better than King's, I'm going to stick to my rules and give it to the one true supporting performance.  De Tavira and then Adams round out the list.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Is everyone with Oscar & I in giving Regina King a trophy, or do you want to support an additional nominee?  What is the fairest way to handle an issue like category fraud?  And how often do we have performances like Marina de Tavira's lurking in sixth place, a total shock that we have no idea is sitting there?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2018: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2018

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

Black Widow (2021)

Film: Black Widow (2021)

Stars: Scarlett Johansson, Florence Pugh, David Harbour, William Hurt, Ray Winstone, Rachel Weisz

Director: Cate Shortland

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Scarlett Johansson has been playing Natasha Romanoff since 2010 when she first appeared in Iron Man 2, the first female cinematic Avenger, and basically since that time we have been hearing "when is there going to be a Black Widow movie?"  After a near-decade of pressure from comic book fans, who pointed out repeatedly the boy-centric nature of all of the titles that had gotten their own stand-alone films, Johansson finally got to have a sendoff for the character (presumably this is her final moment with the role), by giving her her own origin story/adventure.  Black Widow comes in an interesting situation, though, as it is the film most famously delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic-it was supposed to be released in mid-2020, but was bumped back over a year as a result of Disney not wanting to risk the lost box office dollars.  As a result, Black Widow represents the longest gap the MCU has taken from theaters since 2010 (when she first came onto the scene), since we last checked-in with the Avengers cinematically with Spider-Man: Far From Home two years ago.  Since then, though, the franchise has expanded into three different television series, that, rightly or wrongly, clearly have impacted Black Widow and the way it's perceived by audiences.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in 2016, though we do see some flashbacks to Natasha aka Black Widow's (aka Scarlett Johansson) childhood, which puts it roughly at the Captain America: Civil War point in the MCU timeline (we have not had the Thanos snap yet).  The movie is about Natasha trying to take down Dreykov (Winstone), a Russian general who controls an army of female super soldiers, one of which was Natasha, and two more of which are her "pretend" mother Melina (Weisz) and her pretend sister Yelena (Pugh).  Joined also with their faux father Alexei, the Red Guardian (Harbour), the four team up to take down Dreykov, while also in the process working through the abandonment issues the two girls felt when their "parents" surrendered them to an assassin program.

Black Widow, as I mentioned above, is a movie that should have come out two years ago, and that honestly wears on the movie.  It's possible that this film will play better years from now if you watch all of the MCU films back-to-back (that happens-occasionally when films are seen in rapid succession & viewed as one long story, similar to a TV show, they play better), but now we're a few years out and Black Widow's moment-in-the-sun feels done.  Johansson's character died in Avengers: Endgame, so we have already said our goodbyes to her, and she has been replaced in the years since by other Avengers with more compelling back stories such as Scarlet Witch & Black Panther.  There's just not enough intrigue left around this character for us to care about this coda, and in a similar fashion to Spider-Man: Far From Home, these feel like movies that don't really keep us interested in the longer-game storylines of the series in the way that we cared about the Thanos 'Infinity Stone' chapters as a collective unit.  The only time, honestly, we've seen a real urgent need to continue these tales has been WandaVision (full confession: I haven't yet caught Loki though I will), and I stand behind my initial assessment that it may be worth moving on from this series if we don't start seeing some growth in the tales (or some better mysteries unfolding within the series).

That said, Black Widow has its fun moments.  Pugh steals the whole picture wholesale as Yelena, Black Widow's spunky younger sister.  She consistently wisecracks-the broken, petulant sister of a world superstar, and Marvel wisely is putting her centerstage in its upcoming series Hawkeye.  Harbour's accent work is really bad (he shifts out of his Russian accent way too often), and as a result his scene-stealing isn't quite as worthy.  Johansson & Weisz are two of the most consistent screen presences, with the former eternally understanding the assignment (few actresses are better today at totally enveloping their character into the fabric of a film without ever needing to steal focus quite like ScarJo) and Weisz is the fabulous badass who you know will always get out of everything.  There's a lot to like in the chemistry between the four, but it feels somewhat disjointed, and it's hard to care about them when we already know the titular character's destiny (and that this tale will have little impact on the future of the Avengers franchise).

OVP: Supporting Actress (2005)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2005)

The Nominees Were...

Amy Adams, Junebug
Catherine Keener, Capote
Frances McDormand, North Country
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain

My Thoughts: There are a few of these contests where I am sluggish about doing the writeup because the winner is so obvious to me in my brain, it feels like I'm not going to find something new to write about the victor.  The 2005 Best Supporting Actress race, though, I'm nervous about for a different reason-I genuinely don't know who is going to win.  I have wrestled with this race for years, and while I picked a winner at the time, I've sort of just chalked it up as a "good year" rather than committing since whom I would select (if I had "tie" cards to play in this series, this might be one of the times I'd pull one out).  However, the whole point of this project is to get officially on the record, and to pick even in tough races, so I'm going to do just that.  But first, I'm going to buy myself some time by writing about the two women that won't be winning.

First off is Frances McDormand.  McDormand is a great actress, and while her curmudgeonly offscreen persona has started to seep into her performances as of late (in many ways she reminds me of Meryl Streep in that regard), she's a fantastic presence.  The problem here is that that star persona is really all she has going for her-her work as Glory Dodge is all grit, but not enough substance, and there's not enough there for us to really vest in her character and her role in Josey's tale.  In a lot of ways this should mirror Cher's work in Silkwood, but unlike Cher, McDormand doesn't give us enough hiding behind the surface to make this character compelling, and thus this feels like a coattail nomination for a popular actress.

The other nomination that is going nowhere in terms of the win is Catherine Keener.  Keener's work is better than McDormand's-she gives Harper Lee a sense of understanding & patience that feel like genuine character assets.  My favorite part about great supporting performances is that they are small, but feel like they could carry their own movie they have so much backstory in their reactions.  Keener has that, but the script isn't interested in her journey as we continue on, totally devoted instead to Truman, and while that isn't Keener's fault, compared to three movies where the actors are doing best-in-career work, it's hard to compare the two.  Still-a solid piece-of-work from an actress that always elevates her movie.

Which brings us to the big three, starting out with Amy Adams.  Her Ashley is so good; Adams had been teetering toward stardom for years when this film was released (particularly with her showy role in Catch Me If You Can), but this brought her to a new echelon.  Ashley is a difficult part, as she's so earnest & forthright that it'd be easy to play her for laughs, or to make the audience feel like they're in on a joke against her.  Adams doesn't do that-Ashley is a real human being, someone who understands pain, but doesn't feel it needs to discussed in the sort of hushed tones we expect from film character's experiencing heartbreak and tragedy.  Adams' work is occasionally marred by Junebug's lack of focus with its other characters-she's giving 110%, but the inconsistencies of the other characters are not overcome by the script, and thus she occasionally feels a little out-of-place, but that's just looking for faults-this is possibly Adams' best work 15 years later.

Michelle Williams' Alma has the smallest amount of screen-time of the three women I'm considering for this trophy, but she makes every second count.  Williams plays Alma as the sort of woman who was trained to be a wife-and-mother, the pretty girl who never assumed that she'd be in a situation where her husband wouldn't worship her.  Her big showdown later with Ennis is building off of that anger, that he took away a "simple" life from her, and how he did so in a way that she can't discuss with another soul.  Alma is an introverted character, someone that has to hide everything, and those are difficult to play while still landing a punch with the audience.  That Williams is able to do that is a testament to how this is also her best work in the past 15 years.  About the only complaint I have here is that Alma's performance occasionally feels unfinished-we don't get to have that last understanding of what she thinks of Ennis' life or Jack's death, and thus she feels ancillary even with Williams' work demanding attention.

Weisz's work is oftentimes maligned or dismissed in part due to the passionate fanbases for Williams & Adams, and in part because unlike those two actresses, this isn't her best work (that would be either The Deep Blue Sea or The Favourite depending on whom you ask).  But that doesn't mean that she isn't on-par and exceeding them in what she brings to Tessa Quayle.  Tessa is so complicated in this film, having to use her sexuality to get to what she needs, and thus because Weisz has her playing a part, she's difficult to understand.  If it weren't for the groundwork that Weisz gives us in the first half, when so many other actresses would have dropped easier hints as to Tessa's true feelings but Weisz doesn't, the back-half of the film wouldn't be a proper mystery.  We aren't just trying to figure out why Tessa died, but who she was.  That's a really tremendous task for an actor, and she nails it.  The only knock I have on Weisz is that this does border on a lead performance, and so it's questionable whether she should lose a star for that (in which case she'd lose as these are three 5-star portrayals).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes threw in an expected curveball (Scarlett Johansson was a huge favorite of HFPA at the time, and thus was an easy option for Match Point) and an unexpected one (Shirley MacLaine in In Her Shoes, the 2005 movie I'm most bummed I didn't catch before commencing this OVP run), to go along with McDormand, Williams, and the victorious Weisz.  SAG also favored Weisz, here against a carbon copy of the eventual Oscars lineup, while BAFTA did their own thing giving the trophy to Thandie Newton (Crash), bumping Weisz to lead, and tossing out Adams in favor of Brenda Blethyn in Pride & Prejudice.  In terms of sixth place, I can't quite tell who it was.  I think there's an argument to be made that it was none of these women, and instead Maria Bello (A History of Violence), particularly after she'd been left out in 2003 despite an expected citation, but upon reflection I have to assume it was Newton, as Crash ended up doing very well with Oscar and she was probably close to beating out Keener or Adams had she slightly more momentum from HFPA or SAG.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: As you can imagine, three of these nominees would definitely stay in my book.  I'd add in Bello, who gives her career-best work in History of Violence and is so good as the woman who has carried many of her suspicions about her husband for so many years.  I'd also give an early nod to Anne Hathaway, who while not in the same league as Williams, brings a different, more knowing perspective on what her husband's sexuality is to her performance, and is intriguing as a less sympathetic counterweight to Alma.

Oscar’s Choice: Weisz clobbered throughout the awards season, and won in what really wouldn't have been that competitive a race despite us rewriting it to be so in hindsight thanks to the trajectories of Williams & Adams' careers.

My Choice: We'll go backwards-McDormand is in fifth, Keener in fourth.  I'll give the bronze to Amy Adams, if only because of the problems I have with Junebug not always gelling as a film.  For the win, I'm changing my mind from what I said in 2005.  I think Williams does more with less, and Weisz, while not lead enough for me to totally dock a star, at the very least is central enough to the plot that it's hard for me to pick her over Williams considering the size of their roles & the similar impact that they have onscreen.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  On a different day, I might pick a different performance, but today I'm on Team Williams-are you with me, or are you smarting from me snubbing Weisz?  Would this race be on the all-timer's list if you could snub McDormand for Bello?  And do you think Thandie Newton will be able to parlay her Westworld credentials into a long-delayed Oscar nomination at some point?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2005: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Original Score, Original Song, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2005

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Disobedience (2018)

Film: Disobedience (2018)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Rachel McAdams, Alessandro Nivola
Director: Sebastian Lelio
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

While we finished up the 2018 movies for OVP (there's one exception, but I'm hoping to do a week of Starz "free week" binging where I will see that, and I need to be thoughtful about when I do that so I can get all of the showings in while it's still free), we still had three movies from 2018 that I hadn't reviewed yet that felt good or "important" enough that I wanted to give them full reviews rather than a mini review section as is occasionally are wont.  Today starts a three day journey where we'll be finishing these films and closing the chapter completely on 2018, at least until we return to the annum with the year's OVP discussion.  The first of the films I wanted to get to from last year that we hadn't covered was Disobedience, the kind of quiet, sturdy film you assume will be instantly forgotten, but instead stays with you, thanks in no small part to terrific work from all three lead actors.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Ronit (Weisz), who was once a member of a group of strict Orthodox Jews who live in North London but now enjoys a more liberal life in New York, largely having abandoned her roots.  Her father, one of the Ravs (a leader in the community), has passed away, and as his only daughter she feels she must return to the community for the funeral.  There she stays with her old childhood friend David (Nivola) and his shy wife Esti (McAdams).  Esti was both of their childhood friend, and Ronit seems visibly upset that the two have married.  We get the impression at first that she's upset about this because of either a betrayal of friendship or perhaps it's because David used to be a romantic interest for her, but as the film continues, we learn that it was Esti that was once Ronit's lover.  We realize that Ronit is bisexual and that Esti is a lesbian who has been living a closeted lifestyle with David, unable to reconcile her sexuality with her marriage and strict upbringing.  As the film progresses, it's clear that Ronit is interested in being friends with Esti but a romantic relationship is not possible, but still Esti wants to find a new world for herself, and asks David for her freedom from the marriage.  This is despite the fact that she's pregnant, which is something the couple had been trying to achieve for years.  During the hesped for Ronit's father (which she skips, after Esti is caught by the community kissing Ronit), David gives a sermon that grants Esti her freedom, and the three friends reunite, with the understanding over the film's final moments that Esti will eventually leave David to pursue a life where she can be open in her sexuality but she'll allow him to be a part of their child's life.

The film sounds heavy, and it is, but what makes it so special is how measured it is.  The film could easily have been a passionate love affair between Esti & Ronit, but that's not what happens.  The two clearly care for each other, but Ronit is worldly and experienced (and it's not entirely clear she wants to end up in a relationship with a woman), whereas Esti is less-experienced.  It recalls a lot of gay relationships in the closet, where you simply gravitate toward the only other person whom you know is gay because that's who's there.  I liked that they acknowledged this by not having the two end up together, but instead have them just remain supportive friends.  This is a twist on what we'd normally see in a story of this ilk.

The same can be said for David and Esti's relationship.  It'd be easy to make David, the conservative husband of the lesbian, into a villain, but Nivola never does that.  David loves Esti, and is frustrated by her inability to love him the way he hoped she would, but he's never cruel.  It's a tough balancing act for both actors (both giving career-best performances) to have them realize this union isn't working without ever understanding the other person's point of view.  David & Esti both love each other, in different ways, but they also will have some sense of bitterness in their split because they don't see the world the same way.  This is frequently how family or friends with different belief systems end up coexisting in real life, but it's not something I'm used to seeing onscreen, and I loved it.  The final scene with Nivola giving that sermon where he must let his wife go because he loves her more than he loves his belief system, but never lets go of his belief system...it's an acting showcase.  Nivola is way better than any of the men who were nominated for Best Supporting Actor last year, and considering he's never been cited by the Academy after so many years of steady supporting work, it's a crime he couldn't sneak in over less worthy contenders.  It'd be a bigger crime, though, if you let this film's lack of awards consideration deter you from seeing it-it's a terrific acting showcase & powerful look at faith and sexuality.

OVP: The Favourite (2018)

Film: The Favourite (2018)
Stars: Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, Joe Alwyn
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Oscar History: 10 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Olivia Colman*, Supporting Actress-Rachel Weisz, Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Production Design, Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I have so far struggled when it comes to the films of Yorgos Lanthimos.  Dogtooth I hated with a visceral passion even if I recognized the artistry, while The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer I quite liked, but felt they were going to be hard for me to love.  I'm not incapable of loving cold cinema (it's kind of what I'm known for loving, to be honest), but these are hard sits, featuring the worst of humanity, and they have characters that make you appreciate the filmmaking and the acting, but it's difficult for me to feel "that's brilliant" so much as to say "that's brilliant."  This opinion, however, totally changed with my recent viewing of The Favourite.  The surprise Best Actress winner which was cited for ten Oscars (you'll notice over the next two weeks a concerted effort from me to get as many of the 2018 Oscar nominees out as possible, a promise I've made a few times but will actually back this time around as I'm feeling weirdly grounded after a lot of soul-searching this past weekend) is a riot, a wonderfully-acted and scripted feast for anyone who loves the movies, and anchored by enough depth from Colman, Stone, and Weisz to be Lanthimos's best film, and the first one I can certainly say I love without qualification.

(Spoilers Ahead, Though, You Know, It's History) The film's central focus is on a love triangle between Queen Anne (Colman) and two of her trusted aides-longtime friend Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough (Weisz) and her cousin Abigail Hill (Stone), who is down-on-her-luck after her father literally bet her in a game of cards.  Initially Abigail is forced to do the work of a maid, and is hazed for it, but a chance encounter with the queen where she can ease the monarch's pain from gout allows her to become one of her ladies in waiting, and sets off a gigantic feud between Abigail and Sarah, particularly after Abigail finds out about the sexual relationship between the Queen and Sarah.  Abigail starts her own sexual relationship with the Queen, causing a further divide, and eventually gains her trust after poisoning Sarah and nearly killing her.  The film ends with Sarah banished from the kingdom, with Abigail showing her true colors as duplicitous while Sarah shows that she actually loved the Queen, and the Queen realizing her folly but knowing its too late.  In pure Lanthimos fashion, the film ends with Anne forcing Abigail to massage her legs, humiliating her and reminding her that all of her power is coming from the Queen & can be snatched away at any moment, but also underlining that the Queen has given up the thing that had alluded her her whole life-love.

The film sums itself up quite neatly in part because the base plot is relatively straight-forward.  There's not a lot of invention or world-building like in previous Lanthimos creations, where figuring out how the world will normalize is a critical component of the story's end game.  This actually happened, well a less-fictionalized version of it certainly happened, and as a result we are positioned in reality.

Weirdly this reality actually helps Lanthimos's direction, as the departures are clearer and stronger, in my opinion, than even something as inventive as The Lobster.  It's not often (it's, in fact, never) where I prefer real life to an original story, but I sometimes feel that Lanthimos as a writer favors shocking the audience more than he does creating a compelling finish to his story, and as a result we get a really strong ending here, as well as a showcase for the wit of the dialogue rather than always taking the plot in endless directions.

Because the script itself is the greatest star here.  Weisz, Stone, and Colman are all the best they've ever been (no hyperbole-I mean that, and I've loved them all before), but they are aided by a truly splendid script filled with clever one-liners and turns-of-phrase.  Weisz gets the best lines (my personal favorite is Stone/Weisz's: "How good to see you've returned from..." "Hell-I'm sure you shall pass through it one day."), but everyone's on fire here with dialogue that envies film classics like All About Eve.  After such a pleasurable, marvelous picture I'm intrigued to see where Lanthimos goes with his career-will the creative freedom such a critical hit affords him doom him, or is The Favourite the type of film he's wanted to make all along?  We shall see, but know I'll be there opening weekend after this movie.

My Cousin Rachel (2017)

Film: My Cousin Rachel (2017)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Sam Claflin, Iain Glen, Holliday Grainger
Director: Roger Michell
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars


Is anyone else feeling 2017 as a dull film year as much as I am?  I don't think, genuinely, in my entire film-watching life I have seen so few movies in a six month period.  I literally have only gone to the movies by myself once to a 2017 release, and that's psychotic when you consider it's usually a weekly event for me.  The reality is, though, that between a couple of colds (I managed to get both of my office cold seasons this year-usually I manage to miss one of them), and a flummoxing lack of films in theaters that demanded I get out of my apartment, I just have had the drive to get to the movies.  This was even true for a moment for My Cousin Rachel, a picture that I ended up seeing on Father's Day, but is good but completely trodden material.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film itself is not only a book, but also a remake, a film that launched Richard Burton to Hollywood stardom and extended Olivia de Havilland's reign at the movies for a bit (she largely disappeared from Hollywood in the 1950's).  This movie won't be doing the same for Sam Claflin, but it is a film rife with sexual desire and interesting observations, even if it is far too long and occasionally lacking a clear perspective.

The movie's greatest asset is its rich source material.  Few writers are better able to tap into our fear of the unknown quite like Daphne du Maurier, who also penned Hitchcock's Rebecca and The Birds, and here we have a protagonist that's too easy to figure out and one who is impossible to unwrap.  Indeed, Philip (Claflin), has inherited a large estate and fortune from his cousin, who has taken care of him since he was a wee boy, but also is going to soon be seeing his wife Rachel (Weisz), who also happens to be a cousin to them both, and of whom he suspects foul play, because his cousin has accused her of such, even though he was purported to be mad toward the end of his life.

The film unfolds with Philip falling desperately in love, and perhaps more critically in lust, with Rachel, even though he knows that she may have murdered his beloved cousin and could in fact be trying to steal the fortune from him as well.  The film's finest attribute is this weird balance between the two, and they aren't shy about the sexual politics of their relationship.  Oedipus himself may wince at some of the scenes in the film, as Weisz, 17 years Claflin's elder in real life, leans into the maternal aspects of her seduction of young Philip.  The film isn't shy about sexual politics, never really showing what Rachel truly desires (was it young Philip, or elder Philip, or money, or her gay friend...or was she a beard for the gay friend and elder Philip, who had always detested the company of women previously?).  This results in a nasty bit of theoretical conniving toward the end, but du Maurier's books are too complex for her simply to be using Phlip, and we never know if Rachel is just calculating for a fortune or if she, after watching her husband die, is trying to find a way to make peace with the only other man he loved, and is then scared for her life when Young Philip behaves the same way.  Ultimately the not knowing is half of the fun of the movie (I personally want to say she did it, if only because it makes the most sense in her attitudes toward Philip later in the picture), but it's the rare ambiguous ending that doesn't feel like a cheat-it works within the story.

Still, though, the film lacks perspective and is off-handedly directed by Michell.  While the source material is good enough that it's quite impossible to completely mess-up, he stretches scenes that have no point, the film feels overlong, and weirdly shot; there are needless closeups when some distance toward Rachel might have added to her mystique.  Weisz is her usual excellent self here, and Claflin is serviceable, but he doesn't have the emotional heft to sink into some of the rougher and baser aspects of his Young Philip.  They're too old for the role now, but one wonders what a Charlie Hunnam or James McAvoy might have done with this part if given the chance.

Still, this is the rare movie I actually got to in the theaters this year, so it deserves applause just for that.  If you have seen My Cousin Rachel (it's done relatively well for an art house picture), share your thoughts in the comments!  If not-what do you think of the 2017 year in general, and what must-see films am I missing?  Share below!

Ten Mini Reviews

Usually at about this time each year, the amount of movies that I have gotten to has become completely overwhelming, and I am ridiculously behind on my reviews.  It's an unfortunate side effect of having my busiest time of year at work coupled with my busiest time of year in my personal life coupled with having the busiest time of the year on the blog.  Suffice it to say, it starts to get to me and while I always want to give every single movie I see its due, I also don't think I can get to all of these while the memory is still there for me to properly create a full review.  So with apologies to the filmmakers, I'm going to be doing short reviews here; we'll still have full reviews of all of the remaining Oscar nominees I haven't discussed from 2016, as well as A Monster Calls because I feel like I owe it to you to explain why I loved it so much, but these movies are going to just get the one paragraph.  If you want more of my thoughts, I'll gladly interact in the comments (incentive!)

(Spoilers for the films may be ahead)

Dark Passage
Thoughts: The least viewed of the Bacall/Bogart pictures, it weirdly has the most famous gimmick of the bunch, where we have a "subjective camera" technique seeing the film almost entirely from Bogart's point-of-view as he escapes from prison.  The film is solid, if predictable (shocker-the third most famous cast member is the real criminal!), and I loved the way that Bacall's performance is both a brazen young woman and completely lovestruck (few people did that better than her).  Still, once the gimmick is over it's never quite as strong as the top half-part of me wished they'd have stuck with it, even if that would have meant Bogart only in voiceover.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Deadpool

Thoughts: I had sworn to myself I wasn't ever going to see a Ryan Reynolds movie again, but somehow he and Jason Bateman continue to haunt me and I end up stuck with them in front of me even when I didn't want to do so.  Here it was me buying the last-minute hype that Deadpool could land in a major category (or at least Best Makeup) and I ended up stuck in a boring, tired pile of garbage that succumbs to the same cliches that it tries to disprove.  Reynolds may have found a role tailor-made for him, but that doesn't mean he's a good actor.
Ranking: 2/5 stars

Dirty 30

Thoughts: Arguably the film I wanted to review fully the most (give or take Paterson), this film, while not a follow-up to Camp Takota, is at the very least a sequel in terms of who is involved.  The Holy Trinity of YouTube come back, but this time it's Mamrie at the center and all the better for it as she's the most naturally-gifted of the actresses at the center.  Hollywood, in desperate need of a romantic comedy lead, is foolish if they aren't taking advantage of an actress who can sell even some juvenile humor with aplomb-when the script works for her, this is genuinely just a good movie-no YouTube curve needed.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Eye in the Sky

Thoughts: A taut thriller, the last real performance from Alan Rickman before his untimely death (I'm not counting Alice in Wonderland 2), the film is intriguing and actually quite watchable; it's the rare thriller you're not entirely sure how it will end.  The film's treatment of Americans isn't kind, but considering the buffoon we recently elected...not unfair.  Mirren could do this in her sleep (in fact most of these actors could), and I thought the most intriguing parts of this movie (particularly the sly sexism that hits her harder than the other men, particularly when one of her subordinates disobeys) are skated over, but by-and-large this is imminently watchable to the point where I wonder if the director didn't notice it was happening in the script, even if nowhere near the Oscar nomination some were drumming for the dame.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

The Innocents

Thoughts: No actress in 2016 more fully landed on my list of "on the radar" in a bigger way than Lou de Laage.  Between this and her mesmerizing work in L'Attesa, I can attest that I'll be seeking her out in a big way in future years, and I suspect a Cesar is in her future.  The film is not always easy, and occasionally is very hard to sit through, but it's beautifully shot and a more complex picture than you'd normally expect from a mid-fall foreign art house hit.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

The Legend of Tarzan

Thoughts: It seems funny to review Alexander Skarsgard right now, knowing what he's capable of as an actor (is anyone else thoroughly enjoying Big Little Lies right now-I'm totally enamored?).  This film, of course, is not really an acting showcase, but Skarsgard's shot at movie stardom. The casting department could not be lazier (about the only way they could have found a more cliched set of supporting players would have been to throw Paul Giamatti in there for no reason), but the action is fun and I thought the movie itself was beautifully shot.  Still-this is silliness on-top of silliness, and oh man is Chrisotph Waltz terrible.
Ranking: 2/5 stars

The Light Between Oceans

Thoughts: I will admit that initially I had higher hopes for this movie-it was one of my most-anticipated pictures of 2016, particularly considering how much I've loved the three leads in recent years.  However, that disappointment shouldn't be confused with a bad movie, even if it's sadly a pretty predictable one.  Fassbender and Vikander are both great as the tragic romantic leads, and Weisz might under-emote as the grieving mother, but that feels more like the script's fault that she doesn't get any big scenes. Still, some of the film's best moments (particularly Vikander begging her husband to lie for her sake, to keep her from being lonely) show a movie with great unrealized potential.

Ranking: 3/5 stars

Miss Sloane

Thoughts: Sometimes it's hard to remember that not everything is about the Oscars.  This is particularly hard to stomach when a movie stars one of your favorite actors of the moment, one of whom you wish had an Oscar (hint, hint), but Miss Sloane isn't really an Oscar movie.  It's the sort of taut late-Summer thriller that used to get vacation homes for Julia Roberts or Ashley Judd but has somehow gone out of fashion (perhaps because it got completely absorbed by television?).  Either way, this is a fun movie even if it's wildly over-the-top, and is proof that if Chastain ever wants to just cash-out with big paychecks, she has that ability while still remaining watchable.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Paterson

Thoughts: Surely the best film on this list, and the one with the best performance, I almost skipped including Paterson because I wanted to discuss it more, but that's technically true of all of these movies (I really just want to talk about movies all day long).  That being said, the comments are there if you want to go further.  Until then, remember that this is a fascinating little study of one single life, proving that you can make pretty much anyone compelling with good writing and good acting, and Driver's central performance exhibits a man that feels like he's being under-served in major movies even if he's cast almost everywhere.  That penultimate scene is a doozy, one almost every other actor would have underplayed or screwed up but Driver nails against the wall and keeps you guessing-when is he going to get some Oscar love?
Ranking: 4/5 stars

Sunset Song

Thoughts: Probably the biggest "who?" film on this list, I saw this because it was Terence Davies' follow-up to the sexy and brilliant The Deep Blue Sea. so it felt like a civic duty.  The movie shows the impossibly hard life of Scottish peasants right before World War I.  The movie is beautiful, and has that "case of the handsomes" in that it's rarely compelling, and never really lets up with the hardships even for a moment.  The central love story feels, in my opinion, to be too jumpy in the treatment of Ewan, which is a pity as there was a great movie somewhere in the pages of Lewis Grassic Gibbon's famed novel.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

OVP: The Lobster (2016)

Film: The Lobster (2016)
Stars: Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Lea Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, John C. Reilly, Olivia Colman, Jessica Barden
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I am single.  Very, very single.  Chronically single.  Unhappily single.  Continually single.  I needed to get that out in the open before I start to dissect (ooh, what a choice of words) the latest film from Yorgos Lanthimos, which is in the hunt for an Original Screenplay award this Sunday at the Oscars.  I have seen one other of Lanthimos' films (the controversial Dogtooth) so I knew I was in for something bizarre and occasionally ridiculous, and compared to Dogtooth, The Lobster actually stayed a bit more in the lines.  Still, though, as a single person I felt a bit more of this screenplay and these jokes than I would have had I been partnered my whole life, and actually liked The Lobster much more than my first round with Lanthimos.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers around David (Farrell), a man who has been sent to a retreat where he must find love or be turned into the animal of his choice (in this case, the titular lobster).  The place is run like a combination of a boarding house and the world's worst singles cruise, with forced fraternization, but with a twist.  All of the people are forced to partner with someone only when they share a seemingly superficial trait.  We meet several of David's friends, including Robert (Reilly) and John (Whishaw), the latter of which is determined to make a match with a woman even though he doesn't have any physical issues in common with her.  David eventually runs away from the hotel, joining a band of rebels including a Lonely Leader (Seydoux) and a beautiful woman (Weisz) who is nearsighted, like David.  They form a romantic relationship, which with the rebels is forbidden, and eventually come together, but at a terrible price (David likely blinding himself just as the film ends).

The movie is predicated on an absurd world, but it has enough truth to the screenplay to make you chuckle nervously rather than just chuckle.  The film's over-emphasis on dating culture being based on commonalities, rather than admiration or love or respect, is a direct connection to a web-based dating system where compatibility scores and surface-level attraction are far more important than something substantive.  The movie also shows how little value the world places on single people, especially as they age, showing, for example, the hotel manager (Colman), a cold woman with little to lend to her outward persona other than a wedding ring, being valued much higher than those more nuanced people that are in her care.  The film is not at-first a clear slap at modern culture, and the castes we place people in based on their romantic statuses, but it sure turns that way as it continues and we see rejection from both sides of people's decision (you really can't win in this world).

The acting in the film is roundly good, with Farrell, Colman, and Whishaw being the stand-outs for me.  I loved the desperation that Whishaw has to be normal, particularly when surrounded with men who clearly aren't (including himself) and Colman is almost unrecognizable as the hotel manager.  I wasn't wild about the lack of resolutions in some areas, but that might have been because I wanted to see more of this world and the ramifications of some of the actions (particularly what was the animal "that everyone hated?").  Overall, though, this is a much more coherent and succinct vision of a world we live in (even if it of course isn't) than Dogtooth was, and Lanthimos himself stays on my list of directors to follow more closely.

Those are my thoughts on The Lobster.  Considering it's been out for months I'm sure most of you have already seen it, so share below-who was your favorite character?  Who would you hope showed up to the hotel for you?  And how do you think films like this manage original screenplay nominations, but never any higher?

Denial (2016)

Film: Denial (2016)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott
Director: Mick Jackson
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Real life films should always be about people that are only mildly famous, in my opinion.  I'm not someone that enjoys biopics, but if you're going to do one, I like it when it's a story that hasn't already been told a dozen times.  Who needs yet another picture about Marilyn Monroe or Truman Capote-I want something like Denial, or at least I do in theory, as Deborah Lipstadt's story is truly compelling and hasn't really been shared to the world in the same way.  This film, about a woman who went to court to essentially prove that a Holocaust denier was, indeed, whom she said he was, has a rich enough true-life story that it almost makes up for the fact that it's not very good.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film center on Deborah (Weisz), a woman from Queens (there's a great joke at the end of the movie about this that I was the only person in the theater who laughed at...and yes, Weisz transforms herself from a Westminster dialect to a Queens bravado with shocking ease) who is an accomplished academic on a book tour.  Her text is about Holocaust denial, and a study of Holocaust denial, and is the sort of minutia of academia that feels authentic (I was a history major near this time period, so I know how specific some of these studies can get).  In a stunt, David Irving (Spall), a famed Holocaust denier, verbally spars with her during a lecture and challenges her for some of the comments she made about him in the study.  Later, we find out that he's suing her for libel, and with the help of two of Britain's most famous real-life attorneys Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) and Anthony Julius (Scott), she makes a case against Irving.

You don't have to know the real-life story to realize pretty early on that Lipstadt is going to win this case; it's hard to imagine a modern-day story that would show that a Holocaust denier could beat a Jewish woman in court, particularly when you see actual victims of the Holocaust in the audience.  The film fails in a way when it comes to this obviousness, underselling certain scenes (I felt like several of the cross-examinations were a bit dull, particularly when Wilkinson was going after them), and underlining other ones that only, apparently, Deborah isn't able to understand (like repeatedly explaining to her why they can't have victims of the Holocaust speak during the trial for fear of what Irving would do to them on the stand).  The film is too opaque in this regard-it doesn't understand that even those unfamiliar will know how this ends, and doesn't work with the interesting dynamics between the players enough to make that familiarity less of an issue.

Weisz, though, is deliciously entertaining in her role as Deborah Lipstadt.  An actress most well-known for moderated introverts and society wives, she clearly is relishing Lipstadt's up-front and frank demeanor, and the accent may be my favorite from an actor so far this year.  I particularly loved her strange dynamic with Andrew Scott, how they play him as both aloof and deliciously sexy, knowing that they can't totally stand away from all of the rumors about Princess Diana's affinity for Anthony Julius in real-life.  Her work with Wilkinson is less entertaining-indeed, Wilkinson, one of those actors I either love or loathe depending on the film, is more one-dimensional than you'd hope, and their scenes together are arguably the weakest of the film, and since they are also critical junctures in the picture, that shakes its foundation somewhat.  Spall, though never as good as he was in the marvelous Mr. Turner, takes on his bombastic role with appropriate aplomb-if the film were a bigger hit I could see him getting into Oscar conversations, though I don't know that he deserves to be.

Those are my thoughts on this picture-how about yours?  Are you a fan of Denial, or are you like me wishing they'd better assessed their assets in the casting department better?  What other recent biopics did you actually end up learning something from?  And who else deserves a big-screen tale?  Share below!

Complete Unknown (2016)

Film: Complete Unknown (2016)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates, Danny Glover
Director: Joshua Marston
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I've probably mentioned this a few times before, but Rachel Weisz has slowly become one of my favorite actresses at the movies (currently).  This is a weird evolution for me, as I have always liked her (I enjoyed her work even as early as The Mummy), but when she transitioned into the role of mainstream "serious" actress in 2005's The Constant Gardener, it caught me by surprise.  I felt a kind of pride for being a fan early on even if it felt like a one-time thing, but in the years since Weisz used her Oscar trophy less for franchise paycheck work like so many supporting players thrust into the spotlight (give or take Oz: The Great and Powerful), and instead used her newfound crossover fame to make a series of complicated, occasionally successful, movies where she mines the inner-workings of a deeply damaged woman, the best being The Deep Blue Sea, which in my opinion should have won her a second Oscar.  Looking at human beings and the elasticity of their emotions, along with the deep damage brought on by loneliness, is one of my favorite ideas at the movies, and as a result seeing Complete Unknown was a no-brainer for me: favorite actress combined with a topic I was interested in, even with almost no press it felt like the right decision.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film itself is a unique and brilliant idea, in my opinion.  The film follows Alice (Weisz), known by a number of different names in the film but we'll stick with Alice for now, as she encounters a man from her past named Tom (Shannon), who knew her back during her "first life."  She eventually, through a series of deep depressions or whatever would make a person do such a thing, gives up on her current identity and adopts an entirely new one, one where she is a completely different person she creates largely from thin air.  The film is fascinating in the way this unfolds, first getting initial reaction from Tom's friends, who are not interested in her for this reason, and then from Tom, who remembers the girl he fell in love with, perhaps the great love of his life, and as his birthday proceeds, we get a very interesting look at what it takes for Alice to essentially abandon all meaningful human interactions with people and forego lasting relationships in order to completely immerse herself in the different identities she keeps creating for herself.

The film is not a success, it's worth noting, if we're looking at the mile-high vantage.  The final third of the film doesn't really know how to end this story, with Marston stuck between wanting Tom to continue on with Alice, who has been so deeply shaken by her past for so many years and may want to quit but doesn't know how, and him returning to the humdrum of his regular life.  It hurts the film that we never really feel invested in any aspect of Tom other than his relationship with Alice.  His strange gender politicking with his wife, his stalling career, and the crises of middle age and realizing you've hit a "point of no return" on select dreams are all there, but they don't really come across because the side characters are underwritten and because we don't get enough background on Tom to really care, particularly with Alice in the picture.  In that way, the film fails.

But the acting is too good and the story too fascinating not to hold your complete attention.  Alice is really interesting, especially the way that Weisz draws her, and you're left wanting more and more, which may be the point; Alice cannot handle the pressures that society has thrown at her, and cannot deal with the fact that she dropped out so she abandons all of the pleasures of long-standing relationships in favor of a life where she doesn't have to deal with disappointment or hurt again, at least not in a traditional way.  Her going to Tom, the last person who "really knew her" is stunning because it's certainly her last chance at a normal life, and she has to throw it away by the end of the film because she's gone too far, and is too deep into this series of double lives to ever really be able to escape.  Weisz is so good at this type of role, and it works, and even if the film isn't very strong it's one of those rare cases where I'm so compelled by the plotting and the acting that it's kind of hard to care. It's the sort of movie I'd recommend to only the most cerebral and film-involved of my friends, but it's one that I would have to recommend even though I'm not convinced it's actually a good movie, so we'll go with three stars.

Those are my thoughts-this movie made very little money (I saw it on opening night in my theater and it was practically empty), so my gut says very few people actually caught it.  If you did, please discuss as I am dying to get a second opinion or a conversation going here as I found it a conundrum. Share below!

OVP: Youth (2015)

Film: Youth (2015)
Stars: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano, Jane Fonda
Director: Paolo Sorrentino
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Simple Song #3")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Paolo Sorrentino and I have been a mixed bag so far.  When I first saw his film Il Divo, I hated it.  I thought the movie was dull, listless, and at times confusing (it felt like one of those SNL sketches where everyone's wearing a wig and calling it an impression).  To my great surprise, though, I ended up adoring The Great Beauty, his followup film that won the Best Foreign Language Oscar award and my OVP.  So I went into Youth with great anxiousness, particularly considering my fondness for some of the actors (Caine, Weisz, Fonda) and disdain for some of the others (well, one of the others-Paul Dano).  The film itself feels like it's being slightly cribbed from the same page as both of Sorrentino's previous films, in which an insanely rich man who lives in a sort of strangely sheltered paradise finds a crossroads, but unfortunately (despite some solid performances), it never captures the strange life force of The Great Beauty, feeling in many ways like an imitation that lacks the heart and completeness that comes with such a work.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Fred (Caine) as he lives in a luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, being looked after by his daughter/assistant Lena (Weisz).  He spends much of his days being pampered and enjoying an insane amount of luxury relaxing, medical care, and spa treatments, while at night he sees random musical and stage acts amidst the glamorous but fairly vapid seeming crowd of wealthy spa goers.  His most significant relationship, aside from that with his daughter, is with his friend Mick (Keitel), who is a longtime film director who is trying to create his "testament" picture, one that will surpass all of his other work.  He also strikes up a friendship with movie star Jimmy Tree (Dano), who is tired of being associated with a specific blockbuster performance of his as a robot and wants to be considered a "true artist."  Fred's life is thrown into chaos when an emissary of Queen Elizabeth II wants him to perform his "Simple Songs," the biggest hit of his career, for Prince Philip's birthday.  Fred hasn't conducted in years, and initially refuses even if you know as the film progresses that he will acquiesce.

The film is not short on big ideas, and there's something commendable about trying to create something breathtaking (though the shots aren't as consistently superb as The Great Beauty, Youth is still in love with its cinematography and it occasionally shows).  You see Fred, Lena, and Mick all encounter their own mortality, watching their lives and the way they have constructed them (along with their egos, as narcissism and its strengths/pitfalls is a critical component in the movie) be thrown asunder, with each handling failure in a different way.  Asking larger questions of "what drives life" and "what should we allow to define us"-these are big questions, and ones that the cinema at its best occasionally answers.  However, I felt like the movie wasn't prepared to handle these moments, or at least the script wasn't.  Though we get loads of great soliloquies from all five of the main actors, they don't really interact with each other as much as just exist onscreen together, and the constant barrage of beautiful scenery is meant to feel more pretty than to tell its own silent film of a story (which was something I admired so much in The Great Beauty).  As a result, we get fine acting mixed with a message that just can't cut it.

The acting is, of course, very good.  Keitel, Weisz, and Caine all have excellent moments each, and even Dano manages to make me like him for the first time onscreen in eight years.  Caine leaves Fred very unknowable, which is a risky choice, but we get the sense as the film moves on that he's less unknowable to the audience and more unknowable to everyone, including himself.  He's lived his life without much thought toward his actions until much time after they had passed, and in some cases too far after they had happened.  The final scene is a bit much (the "Simple Songs" feels a bit drawn out and not as iconic as it probably is meant to be), but Fred, finally giving in to the fact that time has past and in many ways moved past his era, sells it with his stern, defeated stoicism.  Only Jane Fonda, in fact, really equals what he's doing here, but man does she sink her teeth into her role as a former movie star now reduced to side roles on television.  Her monologue is the most damning, throwing not only Mick, her beloved former director, under the bus but herself and all of the entertainment industry.  The way she dismisses film, and all of the men who try to continue their moment in the spotlight when it has passed, is cruel, jarring, and viciously accurate.  Fonda's lighting has been criticized by the actress herself, but it's a great decision by the director to shine a garishness on one of the cinema's most beautiful actresses, pushing her in a way to show that continued survival is brutal and requires a nasty force.  It's very late in the film and a small part, but for those who have been wanting Fonda to get the great role her comeback has so far been lacking should look no further.

Those are my thoughts on Youth, a film with great intentions that cannot deliver them despite a fine lineup of actors.  What are yours?  Anyone finding this their favorite Sorrentino picture?  Is Rachel Weisz the most underrated actor currently working?  Can Caine make it six-decades-in-a-row?  Do you agree with Fonda's indictment on film in favor of TV?  Share your thoughts below!