A Private War (2018)

Film: A Private War (2018)
Stars: Rosamund Pike, Jamie Dornan, Stanley Tucci, Tom Hollander
Director: Matthew Heineman
Oscar History: Pike, as well as songwriter Annie Lennox, won surprise Golden Globe nominations for the film, but that didn't seem to catch on at all with AMPAS & didn't go any further.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Rosamund Pike was wonderful in 2014's Gone Girl, a film that launched her into popular culture and into the public consciousness, but her years since have been a bit drab, seemingly making the same socially-conscious biopic over-and-over-again.  I see a lot of movies, and somehow have missed all of her films since (I nearly caught Hostiles last year as its Oscar campaign was beginning to heat up, but it missed and so did I since it's not my cup-of-tea).  As a result, this was the first time since she was cited for her Oscar nomination (a nomination I echoed at my own awards that year) that I caught her work, and though it felt a bit like a "medicine viewing" (my brother and I have nicknamed movies you don't want to see but are awards contenders as "medicine" movies), I wanted it to be good-I was just surprised when it was.  This film is proof when I say "I like all genres, because all genres are capable of making good movies" even if frequently something like a socially-conscious biopic struggles to have anything original to say in its writing or acting.  Thankfully Pike has lost none of her ability when it comes to navigating "complicated" women, and Heineman (a first-time director) exhibits an ease in creating compelling drama even with familiar story beats.

(Real Life Doesn't Need Spoilers, Though Unless You Read Vanity Fair This May Be a New Story to You) The film follows legendary foreign affairs correspondent Marie Colvin (Pike) as she works her way through some of the most hellish war fields on earth; Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and of course Syria all feature as headlines as we work through Marie's quest to show the world the worst parts of humanity, in hopes of alleviating the victims' pain.  In light of the recent death of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of the Saudi Royal Family (and the denial of President Trump that this occurred), it must be noted that this film could not be more timely.  Colvin was noted as being a journalist who took great risks to get the best story, which is why she was so well-celebrated in her field, and unfortunately is a big part of why she is no longer alive.  For most American people, they probably best remember her (if they do at all in the United States) for being one of the fellow journalists who sat alongside Christiane Amanpour when she interviewed Muammar Gaddafi a year before he was killed during the Libyan Uprise, or for her interviews with multiple news organizations (including CNN's Anderson Cooper) during the Siege of Homs, during which she ended up losing her life.

While Amanpour isn't a major part of the film, the generosity and lack of ego that was a signature of Colvin's quest for the truth was.  It was noted in her death that most other journalists, when given the chance to interview Gaddafi, would have balked at the idea of sharing the stage with two of their peers, particularly one so internationally well-known as Amanpour (due to her decades of television exposure), but Colvin wanted the story to reach as many people as possible, and didn't seem to care if she had to share the spotlight, because the spotlight was the story.  It's fascinating to see that play out in real time in a biopic, which is by-its-nature focused on telling the story of Colvin herself.  We see in Pike's determination and drive someone who slowly loses vanity or a sense of self-preservation (I love that we didn't have to have a big scene when she stopped wearing the eye patch, that it just happened & you understood why), that she needs to keep pushing out more truth, finding a way to end this madness.  There is fear in her eyes and in her voice, but she overcomes it, and that's a great testament to Pike that her performance underlines this point in a way lesser actors would have needed the script to spell out.

While dealing with addiction is something we've seen countless times onscreen, and there are moments where the film comes dangerously close to formulaic when it deals with Colvin's (the character-not sure about her in real life) issues with alcohol and trauma, for the most part Pike's performance sidesteps this by focusing on her true addiction: to war.  So often when we see successful historic figures, the "genius" of their work comes from within & not hard work, and it's their own personal foibles that tear down their opportunities to continue that greatness, but that's not how life works.  You don't stop being brilliant because you're also dealing with your own personal demons, and the film smartly keeps "Colvin the Journalist" as savvy, sharp, and bold as she was in real life, while showing that her foundation is slipping away as she feels the need to go bigger.  Pike's work here is truly terrific, a spellbindingly accurate depiction of Colvin (getting the voice down flawlessly), but it's in finding the complicated, smart woman underneath that she really earns that Golden Globe nomination, and why I suspect that if enough people see it she'll be the surprise Oscar nominee of the season, as it's completely up AMPAS's alley.  This is tough work to not lean into the character's more colorful attributes to get more "ACTING" in, but Pike plays it cool, delivering great soliloquies and finding the passionate person at the center of the film.  Aided by good work from Jamie Dornan as Paul Conroy, Colvin's longtime photographer, this is a strong debut for a director who was saddled with one of the most cliched film genres in the market today, and I'm excited to see what happens next for Heineman.  As for Pike, she continues to show the promise she exhibited in Gone Girl, even though this film's low key nature is arguably keeping her from becoming a household name in the way her previous blockbuster seemed to intend.

OVP: Actress (2014)

OVP: Best Actress (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon, Wild

My Thoughts: Like it or not, 2014 is going to be one of those years in this category, much like 1975, 1994, and 2005, where we always raise an eyebrow over the nominations.  I'm not saying that the nominees here are bad (they're better than any of those three, and in the case of one actress, she's doing career-best and decade-best work), but this was a weak-sauce year if you look past the nominations.  The Academy was struggling to come up with contenders, and did that thing they usually do in such a circumstance-went to the foreign language well, honoring an actress with her second foreign-language nomination (only the second woman ever to accomplish such a thing).  Because she was the shock of the acting nominations that morning (I recall gasps), we'll start out with one Marion Cotillard.

Cotillard is arguably the greatest actress working right now, give or take some Blanchetts and Chastains.  Every film feels like an event, something to be celebrated and treasured because we all know streaks like this rarely last.  Two Days, One Night is a strange situation for me here because we've come to expect so much from Marion Cotillard that the performance feels very good, but not the "career-best" that so many were trumpeting.  Her naturalism is impressive, and I love the uncomfortable and occasionally dislikable ways that she treats her Sandra, but the film itself is so much structure, rarely working in some of the more emotional scenes, especially as Sandra is dealing with her mental illness on-top of her quest to win back her job.  This cuts a little bit into Cotillard's work, and I feel like (while she's better here than her first bout with Oscar), AMPAS keeps missing the boat on her most impressive work, particularly something like Rust & Bone which has emerged in my memory as a favorite.

While Cotillard was the surprise inclusion here, the dominant force of the Best Actress race in 2014 was surely Julianne Moore.  Becoming only the second woman ever to win this category while in her 50's, the longtime celebrated actress made her impression as Alice, a brilliant woman dealing with Alzheimer's much earlier than your average person.  Moore is a woman who knows the inner ticks and clicks of a character, and you find that in Alice, particularly the conversations, plans, and mechanisms that she has with herself.  Moore herself is hampered by relatively weak costars (save Kristen Stewart), as she risks, particularly in her scenes with Baldwin, overacting, but as a general rule this is fine stuff, and she truly comes alive toward the middle when she no longer has control over her decisions, but is emotionally aware enough that something is wrong.  It's a staggering performance in a not particularly great film, which is always difficult to judge, but while it's also not career-best stuff (it's worth noting, of course, that the entire point of the OVP is to not judge based on other films in ones career but simply the five performances that Oscar put in front of me and nothing else), it's still very strong work from Moore.  There are select scenes of the film that you find yourself rooting for the character, which is always a feat for an actress this famous to transform into that person on screen.

The same could be said for Reese Witherspoon, whose Cheryl Strayed is a truly unique and splendid creation.  Witherspoon hasn't been this strong since at least Tracy Flick fifteen years previously, possibly ever.  While most films of this nature (that is, in nature) usually show a man struggling with his own personal demons but not being willing to admit that the nature is a metaphor, Witherspoon's film largely drops that metaphor (save the fox scene) and we get simply someone doing something she doesn't understand because she doesn't understand her life.  Witherspoon gets a true gamut of emotions to deal with: grief, lust, shame, revenge, hate, and occasionally even love, but what she most has to deal with and which struck a chord with me ferociously (this is easily my favorite movie of these five pictures) was the way that loneliness sets in as you get older when you either don't follow the traditional spouse/children path or when you do, but you feel empty inside for doing it.  Reese creates something magical on that trail, giving herself wholly over to the character-no vanity, no need to prove herself an actress, but just an authentic, grand gesture of a movie.  Since she's a movie star we don't see it examined as closely, but were this a new actress or in a foreign language (or, let's face it, a man), it would have been hailed as a landmark.  Considering how many terrible movies she's made since her last Best Actress nomination, this is a big way to say "I'm back."

Speaking of relative ingenues, we have Felicity Jones who has been at the outer rings of AMPAS with films like Like Crazy and The Invisible Woman in recent years, but generally I've left those pictures underwhelmed.  Her onscreen beauty (those green eyes are ridiculous) is not to be challenged, and I'm rather intoxicated by her inflection, but her acting ability-ehh.  She always seems to underplay her role, and in particular what the part calls for-she's staid when she should be vivacious, and blase about her romantic entanglements, leaving too much inside without emoting in other ways (or letting the script do that for her).  For the first thirty minutes or so of The Theory of Everything she escapes that, and we get a glimmer of what casting directors clearly have wanted us to see-she's vivacious, and has genuine chemistry with Eddie Redmayne, but as the film progresses to sadder territory, she keeps everything on the inside, giving us an English stiff upper lip but no sense of what's going on inside.  Some may say this is naturalism, as surely Jane Hawking wasn't a particularly expressive person with her feelings, but in a movie that is so reliant on her to be an audience surrogate, it feels lacking, and makes me wonder if I'll ever truly get on-board with a Jones performance.

In the final slot we have the one film that everyone saw of this bunch.  Gone Girl, the only $100 million hit domestically, was a major talking point and a book everyone needed to bring to the beach, and it kept its secrets relatively close to the vest.  Rosamund Pike had a few extremely difficult tasks in the movie, and not just because Amazing Amy has such a specific place in literary minds everywhere.  She has to find a way to make her both believably sane at one point and also a nutcase (but a nutcase with a believable enough case against her husband to not alienate her completely from the audience).  In many ways she borrows from Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs-you find her daunting and occasionally vile, but you can't look away, and you get why people fall for her trick as she's too fascinating to ignore.  The "cool girl" monologue, that fantastic opening narration when her big reveal hits, and the way that you see her deep frustration whenever one of her decisions or plans doesn't happen the way that she hoped-it's all incredible fun.  I know that for some Pike's performance, particularly her deep-throated delivery, wasn't to their liking or imagination, but I was a huge fan.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes started off the uniform train with Best Actress in a Drama, where Cotillard was skipped for Jennifer Aniston (Cake), but the rest of this lineup held, as did Julianne Moore as the victor.  That left a surprisingly weird lineup in Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical of Emily Blunt (Into the Woods-makes sense, even if it's kind of default), Helen Mirren (The Hundred-Foot Journey-they do tend to have a thing for her), Julianne Moore (Maps to the Stars-did this film ever actually get released or was it just randomly on DVD one day?), and Quvenzhane Wallis (Annie-all right, I'm out of ideas here).  It's no wonder Amy Adams pulled it off for Big Eyes-it was the only one remotely looking at an Oscar nomination, even if it's about as funny as a root canal.  SAG smartly stuck to the Best Drama race lineup entirely, favoring Moore for the win while BAFTA couldn't quite bring itself to honor Aniston in the Cotillard spot, instead picking Amy Adams, while giving their trophy to Julianne Moore.  It's quite obvious that Aniston or Adams was the sixth place finisher, and while I predicted Aniston at the time (it being a more traditional drama), I was honestly flummoxed, and that's probably why Cotillard was able to make it in-it was likely a weak, close race for fifth that had enough room for someone with a fervent first-place fanbase.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I know that it's popular to bag on her, but I actually really liked what Jennifer Aniston did in Cake (Amy Adams in Big Eyes-not so much), and was genuinely bummed that in a year like 2014 they didn't decide to give her one of those random rom-com queen nominations for a very watchable performance (even if the film doesn't live up to that adjective).  Even better than Aniston, though, was Scarlett Johansson's other-worldly work in Under the Skin, a performance that showed the great promise she had early on not in Lost in Translation, but Girl with the Pearl Earring.  An alien, difficult piece-of-work that hopefully will develop something of a cult following as the year's progress.

Oscar’s Choice: I think sometime early in the 2014 awards season the public randomly realized that Julianne Moore didn't have an Oscar and they all thought she did, so that needed to be rectified immediately.  It's questionable who would have won had she not been in contention (much like 2009's Supporting Actress race, I wonder if it would have been Adams or Aniston in sixth place gaining a Sandra Bullock-style run or a "six nominations without a win is long enough" plea), but Moore clearly was an overwhelming favorite.

My Choice: Witherspoon, no question.  This is my second favorite performance of this decade, and an absolute triumph from start to finish.  Following her would be Pike, Moore, Cotillard, and Jones in a distant fifth.

And now it's your turn-are you on Team Reese with me or are you clutching the pearls over me skipping out on Julianne Moore?  I've seen most of her work, but is there a Felicity Jones performance that will make me a convert?  And I'd love an impassioned plea over whether it was Aniston or Adams that was the true sixth place finisher in 2014.  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2014: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2014

Past Best Actress Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

October Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

Wait, John, it's not October anymore!  Well, you're right, but between work, the election, and more work, I never had a chance to finish up our October Oscar predictions, so I'm going to quickly wrap up Best Actor, Actress, and Picture this week (we already did Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress), count them as October, and we'll do November predictions (in all categories!) at the end of the month.

The Best Actress race this year is, let's call it, looking pretty weak.  In a year where almost every male actor in Hollywood seems to be gunning for a nomination, the women appear to have taken a year off after the "Year of Five Movie Stars" in last year's contest.  This means that the race feels more settled than it probably actually is.  Still, though, it's hard not to believe that at least three names have been cemented into place this year.

Julianne Moore is at the top of that list.  While I'm not sold on Moore winning quite yet (no actress in her fifties has won Best Actress since Shirley Booth in 1952...and no other actress has done it, period), her chances at a nomination continue to improve daily.  She's got other performances this year that will buoy her chances with Still Alice but ultimately not compete with them (Maps to the Stars is a supporting turn with little actual chance at turning into something and Mockingjay is just a blockbuster everyone will see).  Considering she's still in the hunt for her first Oscar and pretty much everyone agrees she deserves an Oscar at some point, this is a sure thing.

Best Actress is constantly rewarding newcomers and ingenues, and while Rosamund Pike might be a little old to be an ingenue and has been working steadily for years, expect her to still be a "newcomer" for the Academy with Gone Girl (she's basically one to the American public).  Gone Girl has been one of the major hits of the year (it's still in the Top 3 for the weekend box office!) and Pike's performance as Amazing Amy is its centerpiece.  Considering she may well carry the film to a Best Picture nomination, it's absolutely certain that she'll be able to score a nomination for herself.

The final "surefire" nominee would be Reese Witherspoon in Wild.  This is the sort of performance the Academy goes gaga over-a major movie star goes prestige, works their star charisma opposite harsh terrain and anchors a movie almost entirely on their own-Oscar gold.  Witherspoon has seemingly been through the Hollywood wilderness in recent years, watching her America's Sweetheart sensibility tarnished pretty severely by her drunken disorderly arrest and string of flops.  Still, she's clearly back in the game and very aware of what that has cost her career.  Films like Mud prove she's more interested at the moment in pleasing the critics and the press, and Wild should cement that-she may well win a second Oscar for the role.

The rest of the field has some debits, but if I were a betting man I'd say that won't stop Felicity Jones in The Theory of Everything.  Focus Features is smartly campaigning Jones along with her surefire nominated costar Eddie Redmayne, as if they are a pair that cannot be separated, and that will definitely help.  Jones may well be in for a win if the film truly takes off, particularly if the Academy decides that Redmayne simply could not do it alone.  I hesitate to call her a lock quite yet because it's so early and four locks seems a bit outlandish (and Jones is definitely second billing in her particular film), but there really aren't a lot of options on the horizon to throw Jones, who like Pike has been on the verge for years of finding a breakout role that could propel her into the conversation, out of contention.

The final nomination is where all the marbles seem to be at.  Personally I think that this race has become a three-horse race between a trio of actresses, but before we get there I want to list a few other names that keep getting mentioned.  I am still not 100% sold that Jessica Chastain won't be promoted back into lead for A Most Violent Year (she seems to be a threat regardless of the category).  Critics continue to trumpet names like Jenny Slate (Obvious Child), Gubu Mbatha-Raw (Belle), and Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night) though in the case of the first two I think this is just a "we know you exist" style year (like Brie Larson and Greta Gerwig last season) and with Cotillard she's continually a bridesmaid since her Best Actress victory.  Then there's the strange case of Emily Blunt, who is in a similar camp to Felicity Jones and Rosamund Pike with AMPAS (she's been edging toward a nomination for years), but is in fact quite well-known with the populace and would probably be an easier sell.  That being said, Into the Woods doesn't quite feel like a film that's going to score in the major AMPAS categories outside of Meryl, and I'm sticking by that unless it's a mammoth hit (Blunt will land the Globe nod necessary to remain in the conversation, though, so don't entirely forget about her).

No, in my mind there are three women fighting it out for the final nomination: Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars), Amy Adams (Big Eyes), and Hilary Swank (The Homesman).  With Woodley, it's easy to see why this has so much traction with Oscar obsessives and enthusiasts: it's a throwback to the days when Oscar used to nominate popular movies when an actor had a breakout year (think Julia Roberts in Pretty Women or Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean).  Woodley is clearly the year's big new star (even though she was already a pretty substantial star to begin with), and if they aren't feeling super compelled by other pieces of work, why not stamp "Oscar-nominated" on an actor they clearly want to welcome to the club?

Amy Adams, on the other hand, is an actor who has been in the club for years, and almost never misses with AMPAS (her only major slight with Oscar was Enchanted, and that was a Disney princess movie when you get down to it).  Big Eyes definitely has lost some momentum-Adams is no longer in contention to actually win the trophy, but Adams may push hard for the nomination anyway-at this point her race to an Oscar statue is a numbers game, and the more nominations she gets, regardless of whether she was in fifth place in that particular year, is going to only help her when it comes to actually winning the trophy (I've been saying for a long time that I think that Adams is about to do that semi-retirement thing that many actresses in their forties end up doing when they have started to move out of movie star mode, but she clearly wants an Oscar before she gets there).

Finally, there's Hilary Swank, one of the most fascinating actresses of the past two decades in terms of her career path.  You could look at someone like Sally Field for an example of an actor who turned their backs on conventional stardom and awards prospects after her two Oscar wins, but this actually forgets history: Field was a major motion picture star during the 1980's and had Oscar shots with films like Absence of Malice and Steel Magnolias.  Swank, on the other hand, has never been able to make herself a bankable movie actress despite critical accolades, and with the clear exception of her two Oscar-winning films (and her surprise SAG nomination in 2010 for Conviction), hasn't really charmed the critics as well.  Still, she feels like the sort of actor that could randomly show up once a decade, and she obviously wants back into the conversation with this year's The Homesman based on interviews.

My September Predictions: Adams, Pike, Witherspoon, Maggie Smith, and Woodley
My October Predictions: It's quite obvious that Pike, Witherspoon, Jones, and Moore are all in this race, and so I'll mark all four of them down.  For the final nomination, I am not quite sure.  On paper Adams makes the most sense, but this is a Tim Burton film and compared to Woodley's breakthrough and Swank's serious film, may not have the weight to anchor this nomination.  Swank is a pro when it comes to the campaign trail, and has been my dark horse contender all year (Landmark Theaters willing, I will have seen this performance by the time we check in next).  However, I'm going to go for now with Woodley.  This has been a rough year for the Box Office in Hollywood, and AMPAS is surely aware of this fact.  Woodley has starred in two big hits this year (combined, Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars made $600 million), and is clearly our newest bankable actress.  I think that Oscar will want to recognize that, and in a weak year can get away with giving her a nomination that in most years she wouldn't be able to muster.

OVP: Gone Girl (2014)

Film: Gone Girl
Stars: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Casey Wilson, Missi Pyle
Director: David Fincher
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Rosamund Pike)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

And now it officially begins-Oscar season.  That time of year when I seem to always have something to see at the movies and as a result my bank account depletes and I start to wonder if popcorn is a food group.  It's also the time of year I write reviews that I know that I'll be revisiting, and try not to make a fool out of myself, and the snappishness of some of those rankings become all the more apparent when time gives me a new perspective on films and performances.

(Spoilers Ahead) Because Gone Girl is not the sort of movie that you just sit back and say "that was great" or "that was terrible."  It is the sort of movie where, after discussing it a bit, the fabric tends to unravel even if you still maintain the admiration.  The movie, about a hapless man named Nick Dunne (Affleck) who is drawn into a world well over his head when his wife Amy (Pike) is found missing, starts out as a straight drama.  There's very little suspense in the beginning of the movie.  Nick, left with Rosamund Pike in just flashbacks and Affleck in the present recalling his wife, first perfect, then slightly less so, is both A) clearly innocent and B) clearly headed for the gallows.  This is a man who has been set up either by fate or by someone else and every single finger points in his direction.  The movie is a bit slow during this time, save for when it points out the faultiness of the American criminal system, showing clips of The Ellen Abbott Show (hosted by Kim Dickens doing a ruthless Nancy Grace impression) where Nick is pronounced guilty from the beginning, a media desperate to find a villain to go with the seemingly dead beautiful blonde.

The film gets a different energy, of course, when we find that his wife Amy isn't in fact dead, but planned the entire affair (this is about halfway through the movie, and at this point you've clearly realized that she's probably still alive, as otherwise there'd be no reason for the Oscar buzz for Rosamund Pike, who seems more like a plastic Barbie doll in her memories than anything of interest, and this movie wouldn't have needed to be made, since clearly it's the Scott Peterson Story and they already did that on Lifetime, though obviously not at this creative level).  The movie then follows how she planned the entire faked death to try and punish her husband for his affair and for not being the perfect man she hoped he would be.

At this point, the film gets some electricity and not just occasional moments of brilliance.  You find in Pike a compelling character, someone you both hate and secretly want to get away with it for bringing so much life into the film (without her, the film may trend into that horrible place of "bland but handsome"...which, admittedly is usually how I describe Ben Affleck's cinematic career).  The plot takes quite a few detours during this part, and some convenient changes-of-heart (I don't believe for a second that Pike would have actually killed herself based on five minutes with the character, or that she would have carried around her money in such a discreet way, trusting the two backwoods-style characters who eventually steal her entire cash reserve).  Eventually she has to improvise and involve her controlling ex-boyfriend Desi (Harris) in order to find some way to finance her endeavors and eventually murders him to find a new "kidnapper" for her that isn't her husband, since otherwise she'll become a different' man's "prisoner."

The film, like most, has its good and bad.  The film's not-so-secret jewel is Pike, a 35-year-old British actress who has been at the sides of films like Die Another Day and An Education, but has never had a showcase role the equivalent of this, certain to make her a household name by the end of awards season.  Pike finds vile places to take her character, frequently trading on her beauty and intelligence to seduce and manipulate everyone around her.  It'd be sort of unbelievable if she didn't come across as so methodical and planned; she's a Stepford Wife crossed with a bloodhound.  The rest of the cast is solid. Ben Affleck isn't great in his work, but he is physically and personality-wise perfect for the role (having that muscular beefiness that defines sexually-attractive in the Midwest, he is both smart and hot enough to have attracted Amy in the first place and continue her obsession, but dumb enough to continue falling for her games).  The supporting parts are a bit of a mixed bag.  For every Carrie Coon (terrificly understated as the twin sister who gets dragged along with her brother through the mud) and Casey Wilson (the only towns-person who legitimately has enough crazy and confidence to have been a true threat to be the kidnapper in the first half's narrative), there's a Tyler Perry (who is fine, admittedly, but too big of a star to not be a distraction in a straight supporting part) and Neil Patrick Harris (who is certainly the film's weakest acting link-never finding a place for his character to be either a similarly-minded sociopath or just a rube constantly foiled by his lust for Amy).

The film's direction is of course wonderfully sedated, as is Fincher's raison d'etre.  He moves the camera through the world as if we're watching a stylish documentary, and the lighting is always dead-on (though a bit predictable, especially with the constant grey) from Jeff Cronenweth.  Probably my biggest problem with the film would be the writing.  I've never read Gillian Flynn's best-selling novel, and perhaps some of these plot holes would have been solved if I had, but that's not really how a movie is supposed to function (it's a separate entity, and if there's plot holes in the book they should be patched up when you get to the movie).  The film never quite finds its identity.  The first half it feels like a cultural study of our justice system and an unfolding crime drama, the second half occasionally a treatise on how marriage may be a destructive institution to our individuality and a paced-thriller over whether Amy will get away with the crimes (you know about thirty minutes before the end that she clearly will, otherwise there'd be no fun in the dark comedy of the movie, so this in particular peters out).  There's also too many story missteps (the entire Desi plot seems wildly underwritten and an extremely convenient scapegoat without much work to be done by Amy to solve the problem, the first half gives us no reason to believe that Nick could be guilty, which would add to the film's intrigue) to really forgive the writers.

Still, though, this is a film worth seeing (which, admittedly, I hope you did before you read this review-it says spoiler alert for a reason), as the strong attributes (Pike, the direction, Coon, Affleck's perfect casting, in that order) outweigh the weak.  It's also a film clearly made for adults in an increasingly teenage-oriented world, and as someone who is continually hoping for more grown-up fare at the cinema, that's worth celebrating.

What were your thoughts on Gone Girl (considering the Box Office I'm sure most of you have seen it)?  Did you also find the plot to be weighted down with too many directions and not enough consistency?  Were you also in love with Rosamund Pike's star role?  And what sort of future does this film have at the Oscars?  Share in the comments!

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

Who dares to follow me?

I write a lot about the Oscars on this blog.  Frequently we discuss past Oscar races, my opinions on Oscar winners, and every single review I write references the Oscars right at the top.  And yet, you rarely find me discussing Oscar predictions, and there's a couple of reasons for that.  For starters, there are hundreds of Oscar prediction sites, many of them far more comprehensive and able to update on a dime (because they have more than that for their budget) than my little one-man operation here.  Secondly, Oscar predictions, even in September, are a fool's errand: we don't know quite yet what films will be eligible, what performances are any good, and even what movies have lead vs. supporting campaigns planned.  Finally, the articles don't age very well.  I write something today and then learn that someone gives the performance of a lifetime tomorrow, and suddenly I have to rethink the entire race (think of how Boyhood managed to change the conversation, and that was in Summer, when Oscar has barely even started).  So instead think of these articles (I'll write ones for all of the acting races, as well as Best Picture in the next ten days or so) as much as a list of what movies seem like they'll matter this fall as well as a series of predictions for us to either look on me in awe at or marvel at my abject silliness as we head through the autumn.  Because it's the race that currently has me most perplexed, we'll start with Best Actress.

It's always a risky thing to say this before most of the movies have been released, but let's be honest: the Best Actress race this year looks pretty...lacking.  Particularly after last year when names like Dench, Streep, Blanchett, Thompson, and Bullock, five former winners, were at the top of almost everyone's list (it's worth noting, not necessarily on the top of AMPAS's-thank you Amy Adams)-this year we have a lot more newcomers in the field, and don't have the clear passion for the performers and performances in the same way cinephiles seemed to last year.

That being said, there's always five nominees, and always worthy work to discuss, and probably toward the top of the intrigue list is Reese Witherspoon in Wild.  Based on the best-selling memoir by Cheryl Strayed, Reese is clearly in the need of a bit of career guidance.  Despite occasionally interesting work like in Mud her career has been on the skids both creatively and commercially for years now (and that 2013 arrest has not helped matters...it says something that up until now that's the only time I've used the Reese Witherspoon tag on this blog despite her once being a Box Office powerhouse and is a former Oscar winner).  This means that she is clearly going to want Wild to succeed, and considering the biopic angle, the fact that she's in need of a comeback (and Hollywood adores her), and that this is a weaker than average year, I suspect she's going to get it.  It'll help, of course, if she's able to carry a film that will be almost exclusively on her in a way that 127 Hours was on James Franco (which worked out well for him with AMPAS).

There's almost always a couple of names from last year in the mix again this year (Oscar tends to like their actors in streaks, though occasionally for quite a bit longer), and both Amy Adams and Meryl Streep are in the conversation again this year.  Adams has the showier role as artist Margaret Keane, and there's a lot of buzz surrounding her perofrmance in Tim Burton's first film without Johnny Depp in eons (oddly and sadly for Johnny, it seems to be his best-looking live action film in eons, so maybe he should reconsider how he picks his scripts).  It's worth noting that Adams is about to hit Glenn Close territory if she gets nominated again and doesn't win (Close, Thelma Ritter, and Deborah Kerr are all tied for most nominations without a win at six, which Big Eyes would be for Adams), a list which the Academy may want to avoid adding to, so this could be a serious contender for the win if she gets nominated.

Meryl is always a part of the conversation, though is the Academy ever going to get fatigued with her like they do every other performer (even Jack missed for The Departed)?  August Osage seemed like the kind of role everyone gets nominated for, but playing the Witch in Into the Woods (which won Vanessa Williams her Tony nomination in the revival of the show) may be a similar sort of role.  Meryl almost always gets in in a year where AMPAS is searching for nominations (1994 is the lone exception here, and I'm positive she was in sixth place then), so if this year doesn't pick up expect to see her name.

Last year was an anomaly in terms of no newcomers being nominated in this category, so expect at least a few new names in the hunt, chief amongst them being Rosamund Pike.  Pike has been on the edges of superstardom for a few years now, appearing in critically-acclaimed films or box office smashes like Die Another Day, Pride and Prejudice, and An Education (my favorite of her work) but never quite reaching "everybody knows your name."  Considering the buzz surrounding the adaptation of the Gillian Flynn bestseller, my gut says we'll all know her name by the end of Oscar season.  At 35, for an actress with Oscar this is pretty-much now or never time to get a first nomination (it seems like women who hit superstardom usually do it between the 33-38 years range, and with Oscar it's usually 27-38 that you hit your peak), but I am certain she'll be in the conversation.

An actress considerably younger than those age ranges who has hit superstardom this year would be Shailene Woodley, who is in the hunt for her first Oscar nomination (it always seems like she was nominated for The Descendants, but she was the odd-woman out that year).  In a year where she led the Box Office hit Divergent and then followed it with the Box Office hit The Fault in Our Stars, she's certainly going to be asked to present at the Oscars in hopes of attracting younger viewers.  My gut says that she could well be in the conversation as a "welcome to the club" sort of invitation for Fault, though youth-oriented films are a hard sell with AMPAS and she's going to need the year to remain pretty skimpy in terms of potential nominees (lining up another prestige drama in the next few months would help her out, I think, in terms of a "we can't be the last to recognize her" sort of thought process).

The other thing to consider when it comes to weak years (again, I hope I'm wrong about this) is that they tend to rely on former winners and nominees in such circumstances to keep the prestige alive, even if the former winners are in less exciting or less tradtional performances.  Maggie Smith in the My Old Lady trailers seems to be able to do this her sleep, but she's an AMPAS favorite who just missed a couple of years ago for Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, so who knows?  Hilary Swank could also be in the conversation again for The Homesman, which got underwhelming reviews at Cannes but could still stage a comeback.  Julianne Moore's weird campaign for Maps to the Stars (where they're hoping that campaigning for SAG and the Globes and skipping an AMPAS campaign doesn't cost them-a risky move) may pay off for her because of her fame and level of love with AMPAS, but this is a question mark of lead versus supporting (Felicity Jones, for example, I currently have in supporting but may see a better shot in lead and go for it there).  Even someone like Helen Mirren (The Hundred-Foot Journey) or Marion Cotillard (The Two Faces of January) may become part of the conversation if some of the above women don't pay-off.  And then there's Michelle Williams, whose Suite Francaise could put her back in the conversation for Best Actress (and a fourth nomination), but the Weinsteins haven't given her a release date and they may be reluctant to have too many competitors again after last year's debacle with The Butler (they've also got The Imitation Game and Big Eyes on their plates, and both seem more promising).

Finally there is Jessica Chastain, who is proving pretty greedy this year with three contenders for a nomination.  Each of those roles, however, have a major question mark.  A Most Violent Year could end up going supporting with Oscar Isaac as the assured lead.  The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby may seem too out-there or independent to click with AMPAS voters.  And Miss Julie doesn't have a stateside release date and isn't the sort of film that will fare well in a one-week qualifier (it needs an October release date to breathe a bit-see also Coriolanus).  Any of these three could get Chastain, a major star at this point with Oscar, a citation, but at this point I'm not sure which one.

My Predictions: It would seem foolish to discount Adams, Pike, and Witherspoon at this juncture, as all three are on the top of everyone's list, and that matters in a weaker year.  Meryl Streep nearly always gets nominated, but there is a serious question on whether Rob Marshall (who has not been strong since Chicago with his Oscar game) can actually make another well-received musical.  I'm going to skip her for now and say that Maggie Smith gets the "we love her" nomination for now, in my riskiest of the five predictions (she hasn't been nominated in twelve years and has enjoyed oddly the most successful stage of her career financially in the past decade so this would be a great topper to that).  For the final nod, with Chastain headed every which way and Swank (my dark horse contender) still under the Cannes-cloud with her film, I'm going to guess Woodley.  It may seem silly or brilliant in hindsight, but occasionally they give out "welcome to the club" nominations for more mainstream actresses (think of someone like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman or Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids), and this could be an example of that.
Is there a winner?: When you don't know who the actual nominees are, predicting a winner is a fool's errand, but there are a couple of narratives that look promising.  AMPAS loves a comeback, which could help Reese who clearly wants a second trophy to jump start a new phase in her career.  Amy Adams has enjoyed an intense amount of success with AMPAS and seems about ready to hit that period of semi-retirement that many actresses (whether by choice or by sexism) hit in their forties (look at her IMDB page for evidence)-they may want to cap that streak off with a win ala Susan Sarandon or Susan Hayward.  And if the film is a major hit, Rosamund Pike could win on her first try (which is a lot less en vogue than it used to be, but is still a possibility in Best Actress).  Right now there doesn't seem to be another actress that could make a run for the trophy, though I do still feel that Hilary Swank may be being underestimated by pundits.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Which of these women will factor into the Oscar race?  Does anyone feel like a winner this far out?  What names are missing?  And most importantly, which performance looks the best from this distance?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Barney's Version (2010)

Film: Barney's Version (2010)
Stars: Paul Giamatti, Dustin Hoffman, Rosamund Pike, Minnie Driver, Rachel Lefevre, Scott Speedman
Director: Richard J. Lewis
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Makeup)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Part of reviewing movies is being able to separate the idea from the execution.  Sometimes, there are movies that are beyond mundane in their ideas (yet another meet-cute, yet another biopic, yet another superhero saves the world), that can work if the acting, writing, and direction stay sharp.  On the other hand (on the Barney's Version hand), you can have a clever, well-rounded story idea that never quite gets to where it's going because it meanders and loses focus.

Barney's Version tells the tale of Barney Panofsky (Giamatti), a Canadian TV producer with a massive womanizing and drinking problem, and during the first half of the film, we see him through the eyes of the three women he chose to marry (not necessarily the three women he chose to love, however).  It's unclear at first what the goal of the film is, and it becomes hazy as to why Barney is randomly remembering certain things, and the first third is horribly edited (the film cuts from a confrontation with a detective to a flashback that is wholly and completely unrelated to what the detective is talking about), though after a while you start to catch on, though the random editing is a bit opportunistic when you find the "explanation."

(Spoilers ahead) The film takes us through the three marriages of Barney's life, first his unfortunate one to a mentally ill woman (Lefevre, and yes, I believe this is the role that cost her that plum part in Twilight Saga: Eclipse) whom he assumes he knocked up, and whom he is mildly responsible for the death of (the woman had just given birth, to a baby that was clearly not the child of Barney, and in this act of betrayal he completely abandons her despite his knowing her mental health issues, and she commits suicide).  Barney moves on from her, and meets his second wife, the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family (Driver) who interestingly enough doesn't have a name (again, this works into the ending a bit), and her character comes across as a spoiled, shrill stereotype (to Driver's credit, she does what she can with the role, but over-the-top obnoxious is hard to dampen).  Of course, being that Barney has already shown himself to be a massive cad, he actually tries to run away with another woman at the ceremony named Miriam (Pike) who does end up being the love of his life, and eventually becomes his third wife.

His rampant infidelity doesn't end there, though, and while he tames it for a while, he eventually becomes jealous of Miriam's relationship with another man (whom she eventually marries, but didn't cheat with), and has a one-night stand with a fan who ends his wonderful marriage.  He spends the final third of the movie trying to win back the love of his life, and as the film starts to close, we see that he has been suffering from the early stages of dementia as the film progresses, and all of these memories are about to be gone.

Again, it's an interesting concept for a movie, but it doesn't work for a couple of reasons.  For starters, the dementia angle is hinted at way too quickly-it's very obvious from the beginning that he is starting to lose it, and the "big reveal" doesn't quite work because it's more of a "duh" moment.  Secondly, it doesn't work because when a movie completely shifts focus two-thirds of the way through, it risks making the previous two-thirds of the film seem totally unnecessary.  Why, for example, is such a huge part of Barney's life spent on his being accused of murdering his best friend (Speedman) when in the end there is such little connection between Barney and his best friend?  If it's a commentary on how we don't know what things mattered while we were doing them, that gets lost completely on-screen and is too big of a leap for the audience to credit the writers.  The film is based on a novel, and it feels like a number of things got lost in translation.

There are some solid performances throughout the film, particularly Hoffman as an aging, abrasive cop who has had a good life but nothing particularly special about it.  Paul Giamatti won the Golden Globe for his performance, so he may not have been entirely out of the running for his second Oscar nomination, and he does have his moments.  However, his persistent shift from zero to a thousand with all of his characters wears a bit (how come every single one of his characters have the exact same rage issues?), and though he probably deserved it out of one of the weakest lineups in Golden Globe history, there is nothing really special about this turn. Caveat: seriously, I've never seen anything quite that lineup before-The Tourist and Love and Other Drugs and Alice in Wonderland and Casino Jack are your competition?!?  Where was Michael Cera for the delightfully absurd Scott Pilgrim?!?

With this cast you'd assume the film received an acting or a writing nomination to be included in the OVP, but in fact it was in the Best Makeup category that it was featured.  While it is impressive and subtle that they kept the same actors throughout the movie and just aged them frontwards and sideways, I feel like this is done in almost every other film, and while more is more is typically the way the Oscars go in this category and one should be proud of a less is more sort of situation, the reality is that this is a less is less sort of scene: hair dye, new hairstyles, and a couple of prosthetics do not an Oscar nomination make.  I've still got one more to go in this category, but I have to believe that Rick Baker's going to be earning his first OVP Oscar if The Way Back doesn't get in the way (terrible, I know, but it's early).

What about you-what'd you think of Barney's Version?  Do you wish that Paul Giamatti would be able to play a different style of character?  What sort of role would spice up Minnie Driver's career?  And what would have been the correct lineup for the Best Actor in a Comedy category at the Golden Globes?