OVP: Actor (2003)

OVP: Best Actor (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog

Jude Law, Cold Mountain

Bill Murray, Lost in Translation

Sean Penn, Mystic River

My Thoughts: All right now we're talking.  After two relatively lackluster acting nominations, we get into the 2003 Best Actor field, which might be pound-for-pound, one of the best lineups in the history of the Oscars for this field; there are some lineups in the 1970's that could likely take it, but in the 2000's you'd be hard-pressed to find a better Best Actor field.  With one exception, and we'll get him out of the way first, I adored all of these men's performances and all will be repeating on My Oscar Ballot next week.  It is honestly odd, because in order to get here Oscar had to go pretty atypical-there are two comedic performances here, as well as a romantic lead from a devastatingly sexy man (neither of these are great hooks for Best Actor where Oscar wants you grizzled and over 40).  But going outside of his comfort zone got AMPAS some rich rewards.

The one performance I wasn't feeling is from Ben Kingsley.  Kingsley is an interesting film performer for me in that he reads a bit like Laurence Olivier, someone who would be dynamite onstage (I'd assume), but who plays to the back of the room in most of his screen performances.  I have yet to see a couple of his more celebrated works, but I like him better when he's cold-and-calculating in a popcorn flick like Sneakers than most of his 21st Century work where he's given roles that demand scenery-chewing.  He's surprisingly subdued, and much better, in the first hour of this picture, but in the last 20  minutes (when the entire movie goes down the toilet), he can't handle it & becomes far too hammy.  I get why this was nominated (Kingsley is an Oscar favorite, and overacting is something AMPAS goes for), but it's still a blemish on an otherwise unimpeachable list.

After all, Sean Penn manages to keep it reeled in for most of his picture, always a risky game with one of the better actors of his generation.  Penn had been marching toward an Oscar for years when Mystic River came along, and this has every bait-y hook that you can imagine: a crime lord trying to avenge his daughter...how are they going to turn that down?  But Penn also keeps his character the right modulation, never too laid back but never too much.  It's a delicate balancing act, playing a live wire so well, but that's kind of how Penn became one of his generation's great actors-when he's playing it right, there's few that can strike that balance so perfectly.  This is one of his best performances (maybe my favorite of his ever?).

Bill Murray is also giving his career-best performance with Lost in Translation.  This is one of my favorite movies partially because Murray was born to play this part.  He totally brings a world-weariness to Bob Harris that feels so informed.  Think of the scene where he's singing karaoke, and you can tell (without him ever breaking focus on the song) that he's trying to tell Scarlett Johansson that there is so much truth in the song's lyrics...that life is made up of these beautiful little connections, and they're the best part of it.  Playing someone who is having a midlife crisis without it feeling self-indulgent or too expositional is a challenge, but Murray knows how to do that-how he knows the best parts of his life are likely behind him, but that he still wants to ensure he goes on having a life of value...it's a tough part, free of a lot of Murray's more sarcastic tricks, and I loved it.

Unlike Penn or Murray, I wouldn't say that this is Jude Law's best performance (that's probably either Ripley or AI), but we're not judging on a curve here, and Cold Mountain is a marvelous piece from the actor.  His Southern accent is strong (stronger than Zellweger's, and she's the only American in the main trio), and he plays his slowly broken-down deserter who is fleeing for the woman he abandoned for the war.  It's hard to play a man with a modern sensitivity without it feeling inauthentic, but Law captures that through his short, clipped reading of the dialogue & the way he uses his beauty to tell a story that the script occasionally wants to gloss past.  Perfect casting, a wonderful performance, and the heart-and-soul of Cold Mountain.

It's hard to remember right now his career has had so many chapters, but Johnny Depp was once not just not a proper blockbuster movie star, but also he wasn't an Academy favorite.  Both those things changed with Captain Jack Sparrow.  This film didn't need to be as good as it was, and Depp didn't need to give the performance that would define his career...but he did.  Jack Sparrow arrives fully-fleshed, and stays that way, with the confidence of creating an iconic character that would redefine much of how we think of the summer movie for the next twenty years.  I have no notes here, other than I am still shocked the Academy was willing to take a chance by giving a Best Actor citation to a man they'd ignored up until then for a summer pirate movie based on a ride at Disneyland.  Few Oscar nominations have been so weird (and few so richly deserved).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama went to Sean Penn against Law, Kingsley, Tom Cruise (The Last Samurai), & Russell Crowe (Master and Commander), while Comedy/Musical favored Murray against Depp, Jack Black (School of Rock), Jack Nicholson (Something's Gotta Give), & Billy Bob Thornton (Bad Santa).  The SAG Awards went with Depp, besting the Oscar lineup except that Law was replaced by Peter Dinklage (The Station Agent), while BAFTA went with Murray against Depp, Law, Penn (for both Mystic River and 21 Grams), & Benicio del Toro (21 Grams).  I think Law was probably the most vulnerable, and based on its award count I have to assume that Russell Crowe was probably in sixth place (which was also a good performance-well done Oscar).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I don't entirely know how you judge the work of Elijah Wood & Viggo Mortensen, both of whom were only giving a third of a performance in The Return of the King rather than a completed body-of-work, but it seems a damned shame that neither of them ever got a nomination for Frodo & Aragorn, and given the opportunity I would've rectified that for at least one of them.

Oscar’s Choice: A true threeway race between Penn, Depp, & Murray ended with the more traditional of the three winning.  It's a pity that they didn't get more adventurous by giving it to one of the other two, considering that Penn would win five years later and both Depp & Murray will likely go Oscar-less.

My Choice: Depp.  I've thought about this a lot, and even rewatched Lost in Translation to confirm, but what Depp does in Pirates (and throughout the whole franchise) is honestly one of those things that define the movies for me, and I can't pick anyone else.  Murray, Penn, Law, & Kingsley follow.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to stick with Oscar & Sean Penn (I won't blame you) or will you ride the Seven Seas alongside me & Captain Jack?  Do you think Law, Depp, or Murray will ever win an Oscar or was this their shot that got away?  And how would you have handled the Return of the King lead actor quandary?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2003: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

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

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Film: Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Stars: Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, McKenna Grace, Annie Potts, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis

Director: Jason Reitman

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Few franchises have been through it quite like Ghostbusters.  The first film, from 1984, was a runaway success, making more money than any other film that year domestically (even more than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), and when you have money like that, a sequel is demanded.  The sequel was also a monster success, but audiences didn't like it, and despite the ongoing success of an animated series (which was the introduction of many, including myself, to the franchise, and launched the "drink of many childhoods" Ecto Cooler Hi-C), a third film never materialized until 2016, when the series was totally upended to include all-female Ghostbusters (with cameos from a plethora of stars from the original franchise, including longtime third film holdout Bill Murray).  This did relatively well, but received a sexist backlash that eventually opened the door to not a sequel of the 2016 film, but instead yet another reboot, here once again looking at the characters from the first film...though you might not have known that from the movie's bizarre marketing campaign (more on that in a second-let's discuss the film).

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Callie (Coon), a divorced mother of two whose daughter Phoebe (Grace) is a quirky science genius and her son Trevor (Wolfhard) a hormonal teenager who has a crush on a girl the second he gets to a new town.  They are living in the home of Callie's dead father whom we eventually learn is Egon Spengler (Ramis), the deceased ghostbuster who broke up the quartet years earlier because he discovered an evil force near where he lived, an evil force that will eventually destroy the planet. It begins to do just that, including bringing back Gozer the Gozerian (Olivia Wilde), one of the primary villains from the first film.  All of this happens with Phoebe learning about the original ghostbusters, and in the end getting Murray, Ackroyd, & Hudson to make appearances once again in their former glory, helping her to save the day.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife had one of the strangest marketing campaigns I've ever seen.  It's not unusual to have a trailer try to hide certain elements of the movie (it's clear, for example, that Disney has a few aces up its sleeve that are going to show up in the new Spider-Man that we won't know until the film premieres), or even to play a gotcha when you don't know what the film is about, but the movie tried everything within its power to not show its clear connection with Ghostbusters, as if it was almost ashamed that it was connected to the franchise at all.  Oscar nominee Jason Reitman doesn't usually take assignments like this (his father Ivan directed the first two movies), and I initially wondered if his off-beat humor might feel a fascinating fit for a franchise picture, and the studio just didn't know how to market it.

It turns out, they didn't know how to market it because it's a bore.  When you find a way to make Carrie Coon uninteresting and Paul Rudd charmless, you have truly hit new levels of banality.  The ending is great-seeing Murray, Ackroyd, & Hudson back on the big-screen is a joy, though I could've done without Harold Ramis making a posthumous appearance (why can't we as a society collectively agree that bringing actors back from the dead against their will is yucky?), but everything leading up to it is a mess, a boring mix of cliches & bad writing.  If this is all the franchise still has to offer, can we please give up the ghost?

On the Rocks (2020)

Film: On the Rocks (2020)

Stars: Rashida Jones, Bill Murray, Marlon Wayans

Director: Sofia Coppola

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Some directors take you on a journey, and you are willing to go back no matter what.  This has been the case for me with Sofia Coppola.  I will not pretend to have seen every one of her films, but I try to see as many as I can when they are out, and all of that stems from my first outing with her, Lost in Translation.  I distinctly remember where I saw this film, in a theater that is no longer in existence (not from Covid but due to gentrification) with several friends, and I was just in awe.  I left mesmerized, and in the years since it has graduated into one of my all-time favorite films, one that perfectly encapsulates why I love the movies.  Coppola's pictures since have usually been more miss (Marie Antoinette, The Beguiled) than hit (The Bling Ring, which is delicious if never as flawless as LiT), but she has forever earned a place in my heart for Lost in Translation, and her reuniting with Bill Murray for this movie...I couldn't finish up 2020 without visiting it.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is pretty simple, with Laura (Jones) a writer in an idyllic marriage to Dean (Wayans) worried he is straying on her.  This stems from her complicated relationship with her doting father Felix (Murray) a philanderer who doesn't think anyone is good enough for his daughter, and insists that her husband is cheating on her.  As the movie progresses, they get into a series of escapades, many of them foolish, in trying to catch Dean in the act, nearly wrecking Laura's marriage when it turns out that Dean is not cheating, and she's falling into the same sort of paranoid traps her father has for years in his relationships.  The film ends with the couple back together, and after a fight, Laura & Felix going back to their strange, loving relationship (with Laura hopefully a little wiser to falling into her father's shenanigans).

The movie is not at all what I expect from Coppola.  It's not bad, but it just lacks any of her social commentary or panache.  Coppola has become an expert at examining the specific life of upper-middle class women, and she does that here, but it doesn't have the artistry that we expect even in her least films.  This is just a movie, a funny one (Jones & Murray have great chemistry), but one that lacks her specific brand of insight.  I am kind of staggered Coppola (who usually only makes movies ever 3-4 years), picked this pretty forgettable picture as the one that she wanted to stake a new decade on, and feel like I missed something in the delivery as it's so good-but-basic.

Murray's character should be more interesting than he is, but even there the film feels merely "adequate" (I'm going three stars mostly because it's not bad, it's not good...this would be a 2.5 star if I did halves, but I lean toward watchable because of the chemistry).  His character is brimming with a level of toxic masculinity that feels like it needs an explanation (even though that heaps out of many corners of American culture these days without warning), but we never get one.  Murray could play this role in his sleep-this is not Bob Harris, a career-defining role, and it'll be a weird choice for a second nomination (and an even weirder one if Murray somehow gets on a winner's track, which I doubt but you never know with a star of a certain age).  Either way, though, the movie & Murray himself are just fine.

OVP: Isle of Dogs (2018)

Film: Isle of Dogs (2018)
Stars: Bryan Cranston, Koyu Rankin, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, F. Murray Abraham, Tilda Swinton, Liev Schreiber
Director: Wes Anderson
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Animated Feature Film, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Wes Anderson are an odd conundrum for me.  Usually, when it comes to a deeply-stylized director, an auteur, if you will, I have strong opinions.  They might be good, almost "stan-nish" (Malick, Scorsese, Bergman), or they might be loathed (Inarritu, Russell, McKay).  But Wes Anderson I am almost always ambivalent toward, despite the fact that his films are very specific, so you would think they would recall some sort of reaction from me, either for the good or the bad.  There are movies of his that I like, there are others of his that I disliked, but I've never felt absurdly strongly one way or the other with Anderson.  He just sort of is this weird tangent I sit through at the movie theater.  When he made Isle of Dogs I was smart enough to know that he'd get another Animated Feature nomination so I caught the film before the nominations announcement (it seems likely that he'll eventually win his Oscar in this category, but unlike another stylized director, George Miller, he's worked here long enough for this not to seem strange), but once again I leave the film with a sense of "ehh" neither particularly damning of it but not overwhelmed either.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is, admittedly ridiculous (though a lot of great movies have ridiculous plots, so don't assume this is an insult).  The mayor of Megasaki (Nomura) in Japan has banished all of the dogs of his city to an island made of trash in the middle of the sea, officially under the pretense that he's trying to rid the city of the animals in hopes of preventing "canine influenza" from spreading to his citizens, but really it's part of a bizarre 1000-year-old vendetta to destroy all of the dogs in Japan.  The mayor's nephew Atari (Rankin) goes to trash island trying to find his dog Spots (Schreiber).  He is led in this quest by Chief (Cranston), whom we learn to be Spots's brother, who hates humans but slowly warms to Atari, and takes on the role as his protector.  They find him while being chased by a series of robot dogs, and eventually we discover that Spots has moved on from Atari, raising his family with a female dog, and makes Chief officially the child's protector.  Together, along with a student reporter named Tracy (Gerwig), they foil the mayor's plan, and eventually Atari becomes the mayor with Tracy dating him, and Chief becomes his protector, with his enigmatic girlfriend Nutmeg (Johansson) by his side.

The movie is beautiful, let's just say that first.  The films of Wes Anderson have a distinctive palette, but here he outdoes himself with mountains of garbage, a gorgeous city (that is clearly meant to be inspired by Tokyo) that Megasaki rules, and a series of distinct but specific dogs.  There's something to be said for the way that he uses the personalities of the dogs to match their voices in a way that works but isn't too wink-y, and some of the details in the movie are catchy.  If you look closely enough at the credits, you'll find that Anjelica Huston is credited as "mute poodle" a character that's in the film but doesn't actually talk, so there's literally no reason for her to be credited other than an in-joke between two old friends.  Perhaps the best such trick is casting Yoko Ono (yes the Yoko Ono) as an Assistant Scientist...named Yoko Ono.

But the movie is (and I know his defenders hate when people say this about him) "too twee" for me.  It has too many characters to really connect with any of them, and it borders that line between honoring and exploiting a culture that's not your own (Anderson is from Houston), with Anderson casting Japanese actors to play the Japanese characters...and then making all of their dogs be played by white actors.  The film is inventive, frequently to a fault, but I don't want to tear down inventive so I'm going with 3 stars because it's technically "good," but I left considerably under-impressed.  This isn't even Anderson stretching like he did with Grand Budapest or finding a new place to test his skills like Mr. Fox-it's just kind of another movie, one similar and borrowing heavily from what he's done before without anything new to say.

OVP: The Jungle Book (2016)

Film: The Jungle Book (2016)
Stars: Neel Sethi, Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Scarlett Johansson, Giancarlo Esposito, Christopher Walken
Director: Jon Favreau
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Visual Effects*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Disney is not shy in recent years about restarting its animated properties and bringing them to life as real-life movies, having us rediscover our beloved childhood classics (and yet they can continue to reinvest in stuffed animals and toys from the animated films that are now popular).  All-in-all, it's a lucrative racket, one that, if you're a parent, you've probably already been suckered into at this point.  That doesn't, however, mean that the end product is any good.  Indeed, one of the things I've noticed with these live-action Disney films is that they are deeply hit-or-miss.  They all look good initially (OMG-how do you think they'll handle X scene...it's happening!), but at the end of the day you can't just rely upon a classic story to carry you across the finish line.

(Really-you need a Spoiler Alert on The Jungle Book?) That's what happens in this adaptation of Kipling's classic tales.  The story of Mowgli, the young boy raised by wolves, has been seen by almost all of you (with $1 billion box office, I was clearly behind the curve here), but it felt pretty played out even early on in the film.  It hurts that Kipling's least interesting character is, in fact, the chief protagonist in the film-Mowgli is not interesting, and utterly predictable (gee, I'm going to haphazardly go off into the jungle and hope that Bagheera will save me when I inevitably get caught doing the thing he specifically told me not to do), and Neel Seethi doesn't really add anything exciting or revolutionary to the character.  As a result, we're already saddled with one of the duller protagonists in the Disney canon.

Of course, the point of The Jungle Book is the side characters, but even here we're stuck by some people I wasn't wild about, to be honest.  Some of the casting choices felt uninspired-let's just get this out there, this is a boring movie.  I found it dull.  I think if you'd put the characters of Bagheera, Baloo, and King Louie in front of me and told me to cast them in the most generic way possible, I'd have gone with Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, and Christopher Walken.  They're all men who have put in terrific performances before and have created iconic movie moments, but if you give them a chance to coast because it's a "kid's movie," they'll take it, and they rely almost entirely upon the earlier Disney film, rarely adding much to the live-action aspect of the film.  Idris Elba is better, though the only person that I think is truly adding something special to this film is Scarlett Johansson, who makes Kaa sexy and dangerous, going in a different direction from the animated feature and it pays off-the Kaa scene is easily the best of the movie.

The film will surely be nominated for its special effects, but even here I quibble.  You may say "it's better on the big screen" but everything's better on a big screen, and I thought that the lighting in the film was so poorly done (the cinematography was difficult to focus upon, as the shadows were unnatural), that it took away from the special effects.  Yes, I'm not blind so there are moments of wow (King Louie in particular stands out to me), but watching essentially an animated movie, it frequently felt odd compared to the rest of the picture-you could tell you were watching a visual effect, which is never the point, and then I felt somewhat cheated because all of that green-screen started to grate after a while, taking away the few special moments that came out of the picture.

So all-in-all, I was not impressed here-I wanted to like it (the reviews were solid, and with that box office I wouldn't totally discount a sequel), but I didn't.  This is a dud, and our classic film moments deserve to be better reimagined than this.  Hopefully Beauty and the Beast can find a way to overcome these obstacles next year.  In the meantime, agree or disagree in the comments-don't pretend you haven't seen this yet.

2015 Emmy Predictions: The Miniseries

And now we transition from the shows you watch religiously to the TV movies that you have heard of starring the people you know as movie stars.  Yes, it's the miniseries/TV movie categories, which frequently feature the likes of HBO and PBS, though it's worth noting that at least a couple of other channels have snuck in with their own brand of worthiness.  Let's start, shall we?

Best Miniseries

American Crime

American Horror Story: Freak Show

The Honorable Woman

Olive Kitteridge

Wolf Hall

The Lowdown: I think now that Ryan Murphy has admitted that the seasons are interconnected that it might be even more questionable whether or not American Horror Story should be considered legal here, but even so it won't be interrupting the clear winner here.  HBO may not have had what one would consider a stellar miniseries season this past year, but without much competition (and boy howdy is this season generally pretty weak for Mini/TV Movies) I don't think that will matter as Elizabeth Strout's critically-acclaimed novel will surely end up at the top of the mountain.

My Prediction: Oliver Kitteridge

Best TV Movie

Agatha Christie's Poirot: Curtain, Poirot's Last Case

Bessie

Grace of Monaco

Hello Ladies: The Movie

Killing Jesus

Nightingale

The Lowdown: Really?  We really needed six in this category which managed to bring together Bill O'Reilly, a spinoff movie of a TV series no one watched, and a movie considered so bad that it couldn't get a theatrical release despite starring Oscar-winner Nicole Kidman?  I don't throw Poirot in there mostly because it's a swan song and I'm still bummed that David Suchet didn't score a "life achievement" sort of nomination in a pretty paltry season, but you know in a normal year it wouldn't have stood a prayer.  Either way, this is clearly between Bessie and Nightingale, and considering it had the higher-profile and Nightingale has an easy trophy to hand out as a consolation prize in acting, the blues singer is one of the simplest picks of the night.

My Prediction: Bessie

Best Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie

Adrien Brody, Houdini

Ricky Gervais, Derek: The Final Chapter

Timothy Hutton, American Crime

Richard Jenkins, Olive Kitteridge

David Oyelowo, Nightingale

Mark Rylance, Wolf Hall

The Lowdown: I like to imagine the Emmys and the Oscars have a little bit of a rivalry, with the Oscars being the star older brother to the Emmys shy, under-performing sister (their cousin Tony is the guy whom everyone looks nervously around when Grandma Peabody says "I wish he'd find a nice girl").  As a result of this, I think that the Oscars clear snub of David Oyelowo and the backlash against them will only strengthen his hand in trying to take home a different trophy this year.  Richard Jenkins theoretically has a chance if Olive is a blowout, but I doubt it will come to that.

My Prediction: David Oyelowo

Best Actress in a Miniseries/TV Movie

Maggie Gyllenhaal, The Honorable Woman

Felicity Huffman, American Crime

Jessica Lange, American Horror Story: Freak Show

Queen Latifah, Bessie

Frances McDormand, Olive Kitteridge

Emma Thompson, Sweeney Todd at Lincoln Center

The Lowdown: An extremely prestigious affair, with all six women sporting Oscar nominations to go with their Emmy nods, though I suspect most of them don't have a prayer.  The best bets here are on Latifah, McDormand, and Lange (Gyllenhaal did win a surprise Golden Globe, and theoretically could score but I suspect not with the Emmys who aren't as likely to surprise on TV as the Globes).  McDormand has the most lauded program and doesn't have an Emmy (unlike Lange, who has three), and as a result I think that may be enough for her to seal-the-deal and get the Triple Crown, but don't entirely discount the other two women if you're being ballsy in your predictions.

My Prediction: Frances McDormand

Best Supporting Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie

Richard Cabral, American Crime

Damien Lewis, Wolf Hall

Bill Murray, Olive Kitteridge

Denis O'Hare, American Horror Story: Freak Show

Michael Kenneth Williams, Bessie

Finn Wittrock, American Horror Story: Freak Show

The Lowdown: In a perfect world, this would be an easy win for Finn Wittrock, who created the most iconic performance of this bunch and had a "star is born" year in general (plus, the women on AHS always get all of the love).  However, the Emmys like their winners a bit sturdier than that, and Bill Murray hasn't won an Emmy award in 38 years.  He's also starring in the much buzzier miniseries, and doesn't have a costar to compete with (one has to assume that Denis O'Hare has Emmy fans considering he keeps getting nominated for these nothing roles).  As a result, expect Murray, if he shows up, to give a speech social media goes gaga over.

My Prediction: Bill Murray

Best Supporting Actress in a Miniseries/TV Movie

Angela Bassett, American Horror Story: Freak Show

Kathy Bates, American Horror Story: Freak Show

Zoe Kazan, Olive Kitteridge

Regina King, American Crime

Mo'Nique, Bessie

Sarah Paulson, American Horror Story: Freak Show

The Lowdown: After four nominations a lot of people seem to think this is Sarah Paulson's year, and indeed she did have a truly showy spot this past season as a two-headed woman (which had to have gained notice from voters).  Her competition, though, isn't a bunch of slouches, particularly Regina King (who has been a TV trouper for years and just got her first Emmy citation) and Kathy Bates (who won last year and is gunning for a third-never discount the Emmys ability to add yet another trophy to a shelf).  Paulson's biggest threat, though, is Oscar winner Mo'Nique, who likely isn't campaigning too heartily (it's about the performance, not the politics), but is universally regarded as an acting titan after her bravura work in Precious.  Considering the struggles she's had to make movies since then, one wonders if the Academy's acting branch will stand tall with her.  She's the underdog, but not by much.

My Prediction: I'm going to go with a rare upset (I don't usually do that since awards shows have gotten considerably more predictable in the past five years) and predict Mo'Nique.

And there it is-who do you think is taking the trophy?  Whom are you cheering for?  Share in the comments!

Emmy Predictions: The Miniseries

We'll finish off the Emmy predictions with a look at the Miniseries/TV Movie categories, the categories that always get a bit of a brush through at the ceremony, but feature the people whom you actually expect to see at an awards show (the movie stars), so it's hardly something you can relegate to the Creative Arts Emmys.  If you missed earlier this week, don't forget to check out the Drama and Comedy predictions:

Best Limited Series

1. Olive Kitteridge
2. American Crime
3. American Horror Story: Freak Show
4. The Honorable Woman
5. Wolf Hall

The Lowdown: This is always the place to over-bet on HBO, not only because they campaign the hardest, but usually because they have the legit best contenders.  As a result, we've got Olive Kitteridge, the likely victor, on the top, though the network's only other major contender (The Casual Vacancy) has no buzz and I'm taking out for now.  Instead, I've got the rare nominee from a major network (American Crime), the perennial nominee American Horror Story (only at the Emmys could a perennial nominee be in the Limited Series category), the prestige-y Wolf Hall (PBS usually slices a nod here too), and the Sundance hit The Honorable Woman.  I suspect that there will be love for Texas Rising in other Emmy categories, especially in the tech slots, but both it and The Missing seem too small to take out this quintet.

Best TV Movie

1. Bessie
2. Derek: The Final Chapter
3. Nightingale
4. Killing Jesus
5. Agatha Christie's Poirot: Curtain, Poirot's Last Case

The Lowdown: Eww, this category looks awful.  No wonder Bessie seems so out-in-front here, there's nothing really to choose from (someone seriously dropped the ball here as every decent contender seems to be in the miniseries category).  Derek made it before and if The Big C and 24 are any indication should have no trouble scoring a couple of nods in an easier slate of nominees, and Nightingale may be largely forgotten but with an up-and-coming star and a weak bench to compete against is a certainty (David Oyelowo should succeed here where he couldn't at the Oscars).  The final two slots I'm going with Killing Jesus because apparently it's a frontrunner (ugh though-Bill O'Reilly with an Emmy?  Blech!) and Agatha Christie's Poirot, a swan song for a famed series.

Best Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie

1. David Oyelowo (Nightingale)
2. Richard Jenkins (Olive Kitteridge)
3. Mark Rylance (Wolf Hall)
4. Bill Paxton (Texas Rising)
5. David Suchet (Agatha Christie's Poirot: Curtain, Poirot's Last Case)

The Lowdown: I am near certain that Oyelowo wins this one, so it's really just four guys going for an "honor just to be nominated."  That means that Richard Jenkins, who is the well-noted lead of Olive Kitteridge will make it, as will Bill Paxton who is enjoying a nice resurgence in TV movies at the moment (at this rate he might well win an Emmy soon), and Mark Rylance, who has owned Broadway for the past decade and seems likely to be both an Emmy and an Oscar nominee by year's end.  The final slot I'm going to do my true random prediction of the bunch (I haven't really gone out on a limb quite yet in any of these predictions) and go with David Suchet, who has been a TV icon as Poirot for years now without ever being cited, and it's not like Ricky Gervais or Timothy Hutton really need points for largely forgotten work this year.  Either of them make more sense (or perhaps even Oscar-winner Adrien Brody in Houdini), but Suchet seems like a nice way to honor a longtime TV trouper.

Best Actress in a Miniseries/TV Movie

1. Frances McDormand (Olive Kitteridge)
2. Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Honorable Woman)
3. Queen Latifah (Bessie)
4. Jessica Lange (American Horror Story: Freak Show)
5. Felicity Huffman (American Crime)

The Lowdown: In this category, "always go with the Oscar nominees" is a solid maxim, and it's completely true this year.  While some of these women are more known for television than film (namely Felicity Huffman, though lately Jessica Lange as well), all five have at least one Oscar nomination and in two cases a number of them.  Each of them have dominated the conversation so much that the only other person who could remotely compete appears to be Frances O'Connor in The Missing, but I don't think she'll have enough fame to get past this list (maybe if it had been Frances Conroy).  The best question here is whether Frances McDormand will actually show up to pickup her Triple Crown, or will she bow out on the off-chance she's going to lose to Gyllenhaal or Latifah?

Best Supporting Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie

1. Bill Murray (Olive Kitteridge)
2. Stephen Rea (The Honorable Woman)
3. Joanthan Pryce (Wolf Hall)
4. Damian Lewis (Wolf Hall)
5. Finn Wittrock (American Horror Story: Freak Show)

The Lowdown: If there's one rule in doing any sort of awards' predictions, it's to ignore your own personal opinions and always just go with the buzz.  Most of the time this is easy, as frequently the buzz and my own opinions are easy to separate.  For example, I can see that Damian Lewis and Jonathan Pryce both have that aura of former nominee and prestige, or that Stephen Rea's an Oscar nominee which should help him for The Honorable Woman, or that Bill Murray is a movie star icon in a major production, likely meaning not only a nomination but a win.  However, I just cannot buy the buzz behind Michael Chiklis, who was in every channel imaginable worse than Finn Wittrock in Freak Show.  It makes sense that the Emmy-winning Chiklis beats the ingenue and part of me is expecting it, but it will break my heart not to predict Wittrock for the performance of a lifetime, and so I am going with him, wrongness be damned.

Best Supporting Actress in a Miniseries/TV Movie

1. Mo'Nique (Bessie)
2. Sarah Paulson (American Horror Story: Freak Show)
3. Kathy Bates (American Horror Story: Freak Show)
4. Janet McTeer (The Honorable Woman)
5. Susan Sarandon (Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe)

The Lowdown: I got a little bit off-the-track in the past category, but won't be in this one.  I know what side Emmy's bread is buttered on, and big names mean nominations (just ask Ellen Burstyn).  Susan Sarandon may be in a tiny film that got minimal plaudits, but she's also Oscar winner Susan Sarandon, who has never won an Emmy in four nominations and she's competing in supporting not the more competitive lead, so that should be enough to make it short of Alfre Woodard being in a show I haven't heard of yet.  The rest of the nominees seem set-Cynthia Nixon, Angela Bassett, and Zoe Kazan all have potential, but Sarandon makes the most sense on-paper, and that's where I'm headed.

Those are my final nominations (I don't really do the reality categories).  What are your thoughts?  Who do you agree with and who are you thinking has no shot?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

St. Vincent (2014)

Film: St. Vincent (2014)
Stars: Bill Murray, Melissa McCarthy, Jaeden Lieberher, Naomi Watts, Chris O'Dowd, Terrence Howard
Director: Theodore Melfi
Oscar History: It got nods at both the SAG Awards and the Globes, but it couldn't cinch it at the Oscars
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Bill Murray is one of those celebrities I frequently find myself just at my saturation point regarding.  There are certain celebrities that I think are wildly overrated (Hugh Jackman, Jamie Foxx...I could list people like the Kardashians and the Real Housewives, but that's like the Free Space in Bingo) and then there are actors I think are wildly underrated (Marcia Gay Harden, Laura Linney, most actresses over the age of forty in Hollywood).  Murray is right at the saturation point.  Don't get me wrong-he's a terrific actor.  I am already dreading the Penn/Depp/Murray OVP decision of 2003 (and I haven't even seen Ben Kingsley yet!), and Broken Flowers has that devastatingly heartbreaking scene toward the end of the picture (if you haven't seen it yet, please make the point to), but like Steve Martin and Matthew McConaughey, the internet has put him in a class that approaches godlike status, and I just can't get there with him.  Too few films that deserve the kudos, too prickly of a personality outside of his work to truly appreciate him in that regard, and clearly stuck on himself quite a bit (though admittedly this is true of most actors).  That being said, I went into St. Vincent fairly charmed by the trailers and loving both Murray's part (perfect casting!) and the supporting crew, and had an open mind.

(Spoilers Ahead) Unfortunately for me, that open mind wasn't truly necessary.  This isn't the sort of film that really requires you to stretch, and aside from a couple of interesting flourishes, isn't the sort of film that required the screenwriters to use much muscle either.  The film is about Vincent MacKenna (Murray) a man who spends most of his days living in debt, switching his time between a prostitute named Daka (Watts) and nights in a bar.  All-in-all, he's the sort of down-on-his-luck curmudgeon that we've gotten used to every actor of a certain age playing (seriously-name me a famous actor over seventy that hasn't played this role in the past twenty years).  However, after a fateful day where a moving van runs into his car, he meets a newly-single mom named Maggie (McCarthy) and her precocious son Oliver (Lieberher), and suddenly becomes an unlikely friend for Oliver.

Watching the trailers for this film, I figured there must be something unique about the movie that I was missing.  Murray, notoriously prickly and usually only taking this style of film when he's decided he wants an Oscar (something he's clearly had his eye on since losing to Penn in 2003...how else to explain Hyde Park on Hudson?) must have seen something interesting in the script.  I mean, I get why the rest of the cast and director signed on (you get to work with Bill Murray!), but Murray himself indicated there was something more here.  Sadly, there isn't-this film was made dozens of times since the 1980's, and we'll see it yet again by Christmas, this time with musical numbers in Annie.  The film has the requisite "teaching him to fight" scene, the requisite "child who unexpectedly swears scene," the requisite "take child to inappropriate locations," scene...it's a series of horrible filmic cliches.

The best thing I can say about the film is the cast, but not necessarily the cast you're thinking I'll celebrate.  Murray occasionally has moments of brilliance-there's no denying that comic timing, and there's a madcap moment of slapstick brilliance over the end credits that you'll be absolutely enthralled by, but by-and-large this seems like he isn't really stretching.  Yes, it's good, but it's not great, and from the man who haunted my filmic dreams in Lost in Translation, I wish some director would truly pull him outside his comfort zone again like Sofia Coppola did.

Melissa McCarthy, in my opinion, is doing the best work here.  The most frequent complaint you hear about McCarthy is "why can't she be more like Sookie again?" (I say this with love, as multiple members of my family and friend group have said this to me whenever the actress is discussed).  That entire argument is a conversation for a different article entirely, but suffice it to say actors go through stages in their careers, and McCarthy is currently in a broader, more slapstick aspect of hers right now.  Still, this is the closest she's been to playing "Sookie" in a while, a harried mother who has to deal with the dissolution of her marriage and her anger toward her cheating ex-husband (and trying to hide that anger from her son, which she does a lousy job at), and making ends meet.  Life hasn't been fair with her, but she handles it in the way most of us would, rather than letting everything slide in a "screw you world" way that Vincent does.  Her performance is tempered with realism (her breakdown scene looks like something that would actually happen when she goes to the priest's office, and not just an expositional tool to give us background on the character), though she still lands all of her laughs and does her job subtly enough to show the path that Vincent could have taken, but decided against.  Watts and O'Dowd both have the great supporting comic bits in the movie (I love it when Watts does comedy and O'Dowd is so effortlessly charming in everything these days), but McCarthy's character was the one I found myself thinking about the next day.

My final problem with this film (which I will admit was at least short) is that I think it's time for us to give up on certain tropes of the Eighties because they're A) played out and B) highly unrealistic.  In real life, no sane-minded person would trust someone like Vincent with their children-the man should be in jail, and certainly shouldn't be shaping the minds of a young person.  Even in Maggie's precarious financial situation this seems unlikely.  These horrible guardian films seem completely dated in the same way that body-swapping comedies do-there doesn't seem to be anything interesting or new to say here. It's time screenwriters found a more interesting way to use aging actors than to pair them with a precocious tot, give them free comedic reign, and then let the plot go out for lunch.

Those are my thoughts on St. Vincent-how about yours?  Have you caught the movie yet?  If not, what do you think about the career trajectories of McCarthy and Murray (and the internet's obsession with Murray)?  Share in the comments!

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Actor

As proof that these articles are a bit silly to be writing right now, as I pointed out in my Best Actress article, these are all just a snapshot, since clearly after the raves The Theory of Everything Felicity Jones got at Toronto she’ll likely go lead and might even win the entire thing.

Still, though, it’s a fun bit of silliness and I hate starting things I don’t complete (the 2013 OVP is starting up again this week, I promise), so we’ll continue on with Best Actor.  This category always feels ridiculously full, and once again that’s the case with a number of actors taking on many challenging roles, though I must admit that even here I feel a tad underwhelmed.  I genuinely get bored with AMPAS’s bizarre and constant love of biopics.  The reality is that while these are occasionally brilliant (Zodiac, A Social Network, basically the David Fincher ones), by-and-large they are boring because they stick to well-known and predictable narratives and while they occasionally have superb acting, they rarely delve into tangents and interesting ways of telling a story.

Still, though, this is about Oscar’s opinions and not mine, and Oscar loves him a biopic, which should surely help the handsome and affable Eddie Redmayne make his way into the Academy’s good graces.  The Theory of Everything got an outstanding response in Toronto and though he is pretty young by this category’s standards, I still think we should count on his name amongst the nominees.

Ditto Steve Carell, playing against type in Foxcatcher.  The constant delays for this film makes me raise an eyebrow, but Bennett Miller got lead nominations for both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Brad Pitt-I doubt that this will be any different.  The real question continues to be whether or not Channing Tatum correctly campaigns here or if he is demoted to a supporting performance ala Julia Roberts last year.  I’m guessing supporting for now, so that gets us to two.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s The Imitation Game has a little bit of a smell around it right now in my opinion, though I am basing that on nothing other than the trailer, which gave away the entire movie (that always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me a bit nervous about the movie).  Still, this is Harvey’s big player this year, and it’s hard to imagine Cumberbatch, who is at “that moment” in his career, going much longer without Oscar attention, especially for something so BAIT-y.

Continuing the oddly first-timer heavy aspect of this category (really, there’s a decent chance that all five of the nominees in this category will be first-time nominees, which would be the first time this has happened in Best Actor since 1934) we have Michael Keaton, back from the career abyss with a show-stopping role in Birdman.  Hats off to Keaton for playing a very meta character (a washed-up actor most famous for playing a superhero…sound familiar?), and I think that if this delivers Keaton could be in a position very similar to Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler a few years ago.

There are a number of former winners/nominees, of course, that could continue that 1934 streak.  Bill Murray is getting strong recognition for St. Vincent, and is clearly pushing for a nomination for that role.  You’ve got Tommy Lee Jones in yet another passion project for The Homesman (hey, it worked with In the Valley of Elah) and Matthew McConaughey could have an afterglow for Interstellar, though with True Detective already out doesn’t it feel like he’s been rewarded enough?  Brad Pitt is back once again with Fury and that certainly looks captivating, though Pitt’s so good so often these days I wonder if the Academy will continue to recognize this.  And there’s of course Joaquin Phoenix, who gets put in Oscar’s good graces as often as he’s ignored, but Inherent Vice has a solid aura surrounding it.

That being said, I think we’re looking at a first-timer at this point for the fifth slot.  Jack O’Connell is the lead of one of the year’s biggest pictures (Unbroken), but is probably too young at 24 and way too hot to be nominated in a category that likes their nominees middle-aged and sexless.  Timothy Spall is leading a Mike Leigh film which is occasionally good for an acting citation (though Leigh's more consistent for writing, where he's almost certain to be nominated again this year).  Therefore, my gut is telling me that this is going to go to David Oyelowo at this point.  His star is on the rise after The Butler, and Selma has that sort of feel of a film that is going to land a huge number of nominations.

My Predictions: I’ve kind of already gone there (Cumberbatch, Oyelowo, Carell, Keaton, and Redmayne).  If I had to name some names that I think are being underestimated, we’ve got Gael Garcia Bernal (Jon Stewart is going to campaign the hell out his Rosewater and everyone likes Stewart), Spall (whom I already listed but bears repeating: he did win Cannes, after all), and perhaps Oscar Isaac who is a major emerging talent but may be picking too Indy of films with Inside Llewyn Davis last year and A Most Violent Year this year (which will help him in the long run with his career but will probably mean he’ll have to wait for a milquetoast biopic in a few years to compete with Oscar).

Is there a winner? Oddly, while his costar Jones is nearly the perfect age to win, Eddie Redmayne is almost certainly too young to win Best Actor with Oscar.  Instead, I’d suspect that he’ll settle for an “investment nomination” and he’ll applaud for either Keaton or Carell, both of whom are at the right point in their careers to pull off a Forest Whitaker-style win (winning on what will likely be your only nomination).  How bizarre would it be for Steve Carell to have an Emmy but no Oscar though?  Share your thoughts on this and this entire slate in the comments!

OVP: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Film: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Stars: Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bob Balaban
Director: Wes Anderson
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

The films of Wes Anderson always toe a fine line between magic and twee-perhaps they're one in the same.  I will admit to not always falling under his spell-sometimes the films fall into the category of too-in-love-with-itself, other times it seems as if we are being introduced to yet another strange character for the sake of meeting another strange character, and not because it is advancing the story in any beneficial way.  However, I will admit that, on occasion, the writer/director can manage to bring to life the surreal, the whimsical, and thankfully, Moonrise Kingdom seems to be one of those occasions.

(Spoilers throughout) The film tells the tale of many characters, but primarily Sam (Gilman) and Suzy (Hayward), two youths who are eccentric, and occasionally, a bit violent (particularly Suzy).  After fatefully meeting at a play, they become pen pals and write letters, eventually planning to run away together.  Suzy's parents (Murray and McDormand) don't seem to know how to handle her, and so she wants to flee, whereas Sam's foster parents find him to be a constant struggle, and he doesn't fit in with his Khaki Scouts, despite the best efforts of his Scout Master (Norton).

And so they set off across the island where they live (they never state exactly where it is, but I got the sense that it was Maine, considering the lovely scenery and island villages), two non-judgmental soulmates, Sam armed with an impressive set of wilderness skills and a propensity for saying what is precisely on his mind, and Suzy with a wild streak and a suitcase full of young adult fantasy literature (with primarily female protagonists, something that Wes Anderson doesn't know much about, since he always seems to put a male figure front-and-center in his films).  Along the way, they are chased by Suzy's parents, Sam's scout troop, and a totally game Bruce Willis as a dim but lovable lug of a police officer, and in the process, realize that they are in love with each other.

The film progresses to an increasingly madcap series of stunts after they are initially caught.  The best part of the movie is most definitely the first half, when they are still discovering exactly why they're running away, and there's more intrigue about what's in store for them.  Once they are discovered the first time, the film gets increasingly far-fetched, with an army of boy scouts trying to outrun Sam at one point, just to have Sam suddenly be struck by lightning (and yet bounce back as if nothing had happened).  The film also tries to sort out some of its loose ends, with much less success than the primary story line-I had trouble caring about Murray and McDormand's marital troubles (or the affair McDormand was having with Willis as a result), since those were the only things that defined the characters, aside from the bevy of quirks that Anderson throws down the respective characters' throats.  One highlight of the film's second half would have to be Swinton's Social Services (every time they called her that, or she called herself that, I laughed as I realized that was going to be the only name the character got).  Swinton, always a firecracker performer, sinks her teeth into the world of Wes Anderson with virtuosity, spouting off her lines with a distinct matter-of-factness and dressed like she's channeling Maggie Smith's Jean Brodie.

As the film progresses, you become more invested in both Sam-and-Suzy, and the world that they are exploring (seriously, who didn't want to go camping after seeing that gorgeous island?), and though about 45 minutes in it becomes obvious that they will in fact succeed in ending up together, you still can't help but smile when the final scene arrives, Sam dressed like his new foster father, and the two of them still sneaking around, cleverly alluding to the title, a joke you almost certainly guessed but are still glad to see acknowledged.  You know the story will go on for these two, and that their bizarrely wonderful children will hear these stories for years to come.

87. Bill Murray (Lost in Translation)

87. Look at that face, look at that complete and utter confusion of an actor caught in the middle of life. But more importantly, look at this movie, because there is no other work this decade who combines a sense of beautiful artistry with a complete sense of melancholy and the eternal struggle to find one's self. I now have times in my life I refer to as "Lost in Translation" moments. This film has become part of my psyche, and I think anyone who watches it will find that they too will be lost in this wayward tale.

A third of this change of life has to be credited to Bill Murray (the other two parts, of course, are all Sofia's and Scarlett's). Murray, in my humbled opinion, has never been better. He has classic scene after classic scene, as he rediscovers that his uber-successful life has been for want-he doesn't know what he's doing, and he's not sure he likes that he's a drifter. My favorite is the scene with the commercial...no wait, the scene with karaoke...no, the end-definitely the end (or maybe the scene where Scarlett asks about the Porsche). Every scene reaks of future depths. I remember an author once commenting that he intends to keep reading Proust's Rememberance of Things Past for the rest of his life. I plan on watching Bill in this movie for the rest of mine.

A Murray film festival? I am in desperate need of one. Despite the fact that I have gained a recent love of him, I am completely void on my collective Murray filimography: What About Bob?, Caddyshack, Rushmore-I haven't seen any of the three. Of the ones I have seen, I'd say make it a double feature between Lost in Translation, and then Broken Flowers-Murray's underappreciated follow-up (even though he doesn't have Scarlett, there's still much to love).