OVP: Actor (2022)

OVP: Best Actor (2022)

The Nominees Were...

Austin Butler, Elvis

Colin Farrell, The Banshees of Inisherin

Brendan Fraser, The Whale

Paul Mescal, Aftersun

Bill Nighy, Living

My Thoughts: For the first time since 1934, all of the Best Actor nominees were first-time nominees.  This is a huge deal because this is the category that enjoys repeating on itself, and usually requires a previous loss in order to take the win.  This means that, while we’ll continue going forward as often as we can (several of these men could get nominated again), this is the only time we’re guaranteed to discuss these five actors in the Best Actor race.

 

We’ll therefore start with the eldest nominee (and the contender who had to wait the longest to get here), Bill Nighy.  Nighy has been a fixture in British cinema for decades, and is most noted to American audiences for his work in Love, Actually and the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.  In Living, he is turning in the subtlest of these five performances.  I loved the way that he has to create a man that is easy to forget, and establish quickly that he didn’t expect much from life…and when he faces death, he must quickly understand who he is while in the same breath figuring that out.  It’s a good performance, one that he can’t be around for the payoff of, but still works well within the movie.

 

Austin Butler, in his first major film lead after TV and supporting film work for the past decade, is on the opposite end of his career.  Butler’s role became tarnished in some ways by the ridiculous press tour he did around the awards, his inability to abandon his Elvis persona earning the kind of mockery where I wonder if it precluded him from winning an Oscar he might otherwise have taken.  But under that pretension is a strong piece-of-work.  It’s impossible to give us the magnetism of Presley (he was a once-in-a-lifetime situation), but Butler gives us a myth, not needing to ground him but instead keeping him elevated even as he moves harder & harder into the King’s tragedy.  Whatever his off-screen antics, this is worth the praise it got.

 

Colin Farrell is the actor who I think should have been getting his second, third, or maybe even fourth nomination in 2022 (Oscar has always struggled to honor the pretty boys early in their career, so Austin make sure to cherish it).  Farrell’s work here is breathtaking.  He plays his Padraic as not simple, but someone who is happy.  He is surrounded by people who want a better life, but he’s content with what he’s got.  He has to portray him consistently through a series of connected emotions (sadness, anger, confusion, acceptance) when his world is torn asunder, and Farrell keeps them all at home in what Padraic is doing onscreen.

 

Paul Mescal’s promise as one of the best young actors of his generation meant Oscar attention was inevitable, but what a way to come onto the scene with a complicated look at a father’s relationship with his preteen daughter.  Aftersun is not an easy film, and you have to almost see this film twice before you realize the work he’s doing here, the way he’s reflecting not just his own reality, but the reality of his daughter trying to understand what he became as he got older.  As we learn through the movie, that knowledge won’t be clear unless you can read into Mescal’s work as a man given a child he loves, but perhaps too soon in his life for it not to come with some resentment.  I love what he’s doing here, and think it makes the movie.

 

Which brings us to Brendan Fraser.  Fraser seems like a lovely man, and he had a winning presence in the 1990’s in fluff like George of the Jungle and The Mummy before Hollywood threw him to the wolves.  But in a year where it felt like all four acting winners were running a race for Homecoming Queen rather than quality acting (i.e. this was very much a “Twitter fandom” quartet), no one embodied the problems of that more than Fraser.  Fraser is not a strong actor, and is wildly out-of-his-depth in Aronofsky’s The Whale.  The movie is bad, and writes itself as a horror film even though it’s more tragedy unless you want to indulge the fatphobic cruelty inflicted on Fraser’s Charlie.  But Fraser is adrift, playing his character as someone who existed only the second the film started, and doesn’t have any consistency from scene-to-scene.  His monologues are badly delivered, his chemistry with his onscreen daughter played by Sadie Sink is nonexistent, & this is one of the worst performances to ever get an Oscar nomination, much less win one.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama gave their statue to Butler against Fraser, Nighy, Hugh Jackman (The Son), & Jeremy Pope (The Inspection), while Comedy/Musical went with Farrell atop Diego Calva (Babylon), Daniel Craig (Glass Onion), Adam Driver (White Noise), & Ralph Fiennes (The Menu).  The SAG Awards went with a near copy of Oscar (including winner) except they skipped Mescal in favor of Adam Sandler (Hustle) while BAFTA gave their statue to Butler atop the AMPAS field + Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande...BAFTA goes six-wide these days).  In terms of sixth place, I'm going to say it was...none of these?  My guess is that the late-breaking support for Top Gun: Maverick and the "he saved movies" battle cry would've gotten Tom Cruise back into the acting Oscars for the first time in 24 years.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Gabriel LaBelle is getting skipped because he's young and Oscar struggles what to do with young men in lead roles.  But given he's critical to the success of The Fabelmans, and he's marvelous in the movie, I would've found a spot for him.

Oscar’s Choice: Fraser won over Butler, the SAG buzz being impossible to deny even if Butler had dominated the rest of the year.  Neither win would've aged super well for the actors (I think Butler winning so young would've given him a touch of the Adrien Brody's), but a bad look for Oscar.

My Choice: I will be totally honest here-I struggle mightily between Farrell & Mescal, and did in my own personal awards (this is the category I wavered the most in at the time).  In terms of who deserved the Oscar, it was Farrell, no question (he's far enough in his career it won't hurt him), but in terms of a merit alone...I still land with Farrell.  Mescal's work is beautiful, but Farrell's adds a lot of dimension while also needing to be funny, and I think the difficulty in that breaks my tie.  Both would've been inspired winners, though (and-spoiler alert-are my gold & silver medalists).  Behind them are Butler, Nighy, & Fraser, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to stay on the side of Oscar & Brendan Fraser's comeback, or are you joining me in giving Colin Farrell his due?  In a field of first-timers, who do you think adds a second nomination first to their collection?  And does anyone want to fight me over it being Tom Cruise in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2022: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature, Sound, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2022

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

Is There a Wrong Time to Win an Oscar?

On Sunday, the Oscars will give out their 95th Academy Awards, and with that, they will give out a statue for Best Actor.  This is, as you can imagine, one of the biggest ticket moments of the night, and of course, is one of the highest honors for any actor in their career.  Winning an Oscar generally is about more than just the performance at hand, and cynical people use this as a cudgel to wield against the ceremony, but I do think this is occasionally kind of the point-the Oscar is such a high honor, maybe it should be about more than just the performance in that year, and instead about the career that led to that win, and about the career that's happening out of it.  Either way, that is what happens.  People hold actors who have won an Academy Award to a different standard than those who merely make a movie, or who even just get nominated.  This occasionally leads to a really odd question-is there a situation where, for an actor's long-term career, it's bad to win an Oscar?  I ask this in relation to the Best Actor category because I'd argue the two men who are frontrunners for this year's ceremony, Austin Butler & Brendan Fraser, may well fear the backlash of the win as much as they could covet the statue itself.

It's worth taking a step back and looking at these two performances in relation to this question, and that's going to require me to be a bit qualitative about my thoughts on the two actors, and what they're nominated for this year so be forewarned-I'm about to have opinions.  Let's start with Butler.  Austin Butler is 31-years-old, and up until this past year, was largely known for his relationship with actress Vanessa Hudgens.  Though he has worked in Hollywood for over a decade, it's been mostly in guest spots on Disney Channel & Nickelodeon shows, and in unsuccessful teen shows like The Carrie Diaries.  Butler is attractive, almost in an absurd how-is-this-possible way, which would be unusual for a category that generally likes their winners to be in their forties or fifties, and a bit grizzled.  Even those with pretty boy pasts, like Paul Newman & Leonardo DiCaprio, had to wait until crow's feet had set in, before winning trophies.

Butler's nomination opens up a new career chapter for him.  The notices he got for Elvis, which I will note he's quite good in, are the stuff that bring on a new type of career, and already it's paying off, as he's gotten work with Denis Villeneuve & Jeff Nichols on upcoming projects.  But winning would put him in a different category all-together.  At 31, it's not entirely clear that Butler can sustain the pressure usually pitted on young men who win Best Actor before they're firmly established as stars.  While women can frequently outrun an early Oscar victory (for a variety of reasons, many of them sexist), when it comes to male performers, winning young has a rough track record.  It's hard not to think of performers like Adrien Brody or Timothy Hutton, both of whom won Oscars very early in their careers and ultimately could never live up to the hype in subsequent roles.  Brody, in particular, would feel like the rest of his career was a disappointment compared to the early career high of The Pianist.  Though he'd be the lead in King Kong, a critical success & box office champion, the victory there largely belonged to the titular gorilla, and he's spent the past two decades feeling like someone who had unfulfilled promise as a star.

It's also hard not to think of someone like Timothee Chalamet, who has spent much of his post-Oscar nomination years (he was cited for Call Me By Your Name) kind of finding himself as a performer.  While he has certainly had success, they've been in projects where he wasn't the calling card (Little Women) or where he's upstaged by the visual effects (Dune).  Much of the rest of his work since Call Me By Your Name has been in box office bombs (Beautiful Boy) or streaming titles that were released with little fanfare (The King, A Rainy Day in New York).  Without an Oscar, this could be chocked up as Chalamet finding himself, someone who clearly had great potential but needed to test his persona out with the public.  Had he won an Oscar, particularly against a screen icon like Gary Oldman (who is celebrated by a certain type of very loud Gen X cinephile as one of the great actors of his generation), the pressure & publicity around a film like Beautiful Boy underperforming at the Box Office, or The King basically being a nonentity would've led to something similar to what Brody endured.  Though I think his work in Call Me By Your Name was revolutionary (I would've voted for him), in hindsight not winning was probably for the best...and is an indication of how Butler might benefit from waiting until his second or third citation to get a statue.

Brendan Fraser would not stand out as a particularly young Best Actor winner (he is 54), and the challenge of him winning would not be the same as that of Butler.  Fraser is in the middle of a comeback.  He spent much of the 1990's as a go-to affable guy in films like George of the Jungle and The Mummy, a handsome leading man with a light comic touch in films that didn't need a lot of thespian credentials.  It's clear with roles in Gods and Monsters and The Quiet American that he aspired for this type of role, but after a series of box office flops like Dudley Do-Right and Monkeybone, as well as a number of personal setbacks including the death of his mother & a divorce from his wife Afton Smith, he largely disappeared from public consciousness until The Whale brought him back.

Fraser's career is arguably in the best spot it's been in since 1999.  The Whale was a sleeper hit, and he's costarring in upcoming films starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Glenn Close.  One could argue this is the right time to give him an Oscar...but I'm going to point out that this comes with serious risks.  There are a few reasons that Fraser could suffer, but in very different ways that Butler.  The first is that The Whale is, well, not very good.  Though your mileage may vary on his performance (which I found to be quite poor but I'll admit some give him more leeway), the film itself has already become something of a pop culture punching bag, and it's hard not to quickly compare Fraser to Rami Malek, who won in 2018 for another movie (albeit a much bigger movie) called Bohemian Rhapsody with a similar critical reception.  Like Fraser, Malek didn't have the resume of a traditional Oscar winner (nothing in Fraser's career has approached an Oscar nomination, not really, other than The Whale), and the performance was mixed-at-best.  He won off of the momentum from ardent fans, and from people obsessed with the physical transformation onscreen, but Malek's win in retrospect is considered a poor decision by Oscar.  Even worthy Oscar winners usually suffer something of a backlash for not sustaining that hype post-win (look at Anne Hathaway or Nicole Kidman, for example), but winning for a bad performance...Malek's career since then does not look like that of a traditional leading man (Bond villain, several high-profile critical & commercial flops).  Quite frankly, it looks like Oscar made a mistake.  Couple that with Fraser's performance being that of a gay man (played by a straight man) and someone who wears a fat suit for the entirety of the film, both of which are already considered to be eyebrow-raising (and I suspect in the years to come could become more taboo), and you've got the recipe for a sequel to Malek.  If you were his publicist, you might just hope Fraser loses, and can use the momentum of this nomination (which has already revitalized his career) to win for something with Scorsese or Nichols...something that would age better.

The other remaining actors would be able to handle a win better.  Paul Mescal is younger than Austin Butler, but his career has proven already that he is a once-in-a-generation talent (did you see Normal People?) that could likely sustain an early win, because he's shown he's able to top his work in Aftersun already.  Bill Nighy at age 73 would be seen as a career-capper for a longtime character actor.  There's no pressure at that age to become a leading man, so him going back to supporting roles wouldn't be seen as a failure.  And of course there's Colin Farrell, an actor who should be on his third or fourth nomination by now, and who gives the best performance in the category in The Banshees of Inisherin.  At age 46, Farrell is already a leading man & a dependable actor.  His win would give him a different career sheen, but as a man who has worked with directors as storied as Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Terrence Malick, Michael Mann, Woody Allen, Neil Jordan, Terry Gilliam, Peter Weir, Liv Ullmann, Yorgos Lanthimos, Sofia Coppola, Tim Burton, Steve McQueen, Kenneth Branagh, & Ron Howard...this is someone who understands that putting in the work and picking the right material can pay off.  It's also notable that, like Leonardo DiCaprio before him, he hasn't selected his next project yet, and is smart enough & well-positioned enough in his career to wait a year or two for the perfect followup to a win.  All-in-all, Farrell is in the best spot to win an Oscar both in terms of quality and in terms of career position, but it doesn't look like he'll pull it off.

4 Mini Reviews

As I'm working through all of the films I haven't touched on in the past few months, struggling to catch up with my film reviews, I'm going to do something I'm generally loathe to do: do a mini review of the pictures.  I don't like doing this, in part because while this is a generally low-traffic blog for me it's the closest thing I get to a time capsule of my thoughts on a specific picture and what things stuck out to me as soon as I watched it rather than distant memories where so-often you're reliant upon what others called out as important about the film afterwards than what you, yourself liked at the time.  However, these have been distant enough that I won't have that cache, none were nominated for an Oscar so I won't be referencing these films again for the OVP, and due simply to time (I need to get some of these reviews out of my draft folder), we'll be doing four short mini reviews.  If any of these are ones you want to discuss more thoroughly or get my expanded thoughts, I'm happy to discuss in the comments.

(Some Spoilers ahead for Stronger, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, Wonderstruck, and Last Flag Flying-read only the paragraphs where you've seen the films if you have a spoiler allergy)

Stronger (dir. David Gordon Green)

The story of a man whose legs were blown off after the Boston Marathon is shocking in the way that it avoids overly sentimentalizing its main character Jeff Bauman (played by Jake Gyllenhaal in yet another superb performance).  I went into this picture reluctantly, assuming it would be your general true-life story that deserves kudos to the actual person, but which comes across as drivel in the film, but Gyllenhaal plays Bauman as a real person, struggling with the concept of being a hero for basically being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who must admit feelings he has even if he's someone that doesn't have any sort of comfort admitting feelings.  Hats off to both he and the two women in his life, his girlfriend Tatiana Maslany and his mother Miranda Richardson, who find a strong, independent dynamic for their work.  The film's story is too-cliched and hugs the many sentimental traps that it avoided the first half when we get to the ending, but by-and-large this is one of the better "unlikely real-life hero" stories I've seen in a while. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (dir. Yorgos Lanthimos)

I left Dogtooth disgusted and confused.  I left The Lobster confused but getting where this was headed.  Sacred Deer seems to combine the two pictures.  While it's hard to imagine something as disturbing as Dogtooth, I can't deny this is a really nasty movie.  The film follows Colin Farrell, who has essentially been cursed by a terrifying Barry Koeghan after accidentally killing his father, and as a result Farrell's family (including wife Nicole Kidman) are slowly dying.  As punishment from Koeghan's character, Farrell must choose one of his family members to die, or else they all will.  The film is quite literal, even though at first you're meant not to trust Koeghan's character.  This picture is probably one that works best in comparison to Lanthimos's other flicks, knowing that he'll soon hit his near-perfect stride with The Favourite, and realizing that this is him trying out adventures that sometimes work, sometimes don't (the film struggles with its pacing once you realize the curse is real), but it's still a wild, creepy ride. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Wonderstruck (dir. Todd Haynes)

Todd Haynes' films are a hodgepodge for me, where I always respect them, but I don't ever love them (except for Carol).  Wonderstruck, his first film since the Blanchett-Mara duet, is back to "respect but don't love," but there's still a lot to admire here.  The film has a terrific central performance by Millicent Simmonds as a young deaf girl who is trying to find her brother in the Museum of Natural History in New York City (Julianne Moore plays her as an adult).  Told concurrently is a tale about a young man fifty years later who has just lost his mother (Michelle Williams) and is also trying to run away in the Museum of Natural History.  Beautifully shot by Edward Lachman, there are some wonderfully-felt scenes where we explore the Natural History Museum and the Queens Museum (I love museums-this was catnip for me), though the film's ending is a bit of a letdown, and it felt too cold for a movie that is trying to be warm.  Still, worth your time. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Last Flag Flying (dir. Richard Linklater)

Our final film for today is Richard Linklater's latest (at least for a few more weeks): Last Flag Flying.  Starring Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston, & Laurence Fishburne as a trio of former war buddies who are on a trek to bury Carell's son where he wanted to be buried (and not in Arlington), this is a road trip by way of Linklater, so you know there's more below-the-surface that he's hoping will come out through his script and plotting.  Linklater's been on a roll lately (Before Midnight, Boyhood, and Everybody Wants Some! all made my Top 5 of the year), but this was a misfire.  Cranston overcompensates as an actor, and Carell under-emotes, and while there's a lot of meat about politics, aging, death, and friendship in Linklater's script, it doesn't gel.  Here's to hoping that Cate Blanchett gets him back into his groove. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Widows (2018)

Film: Widows (2018)
Stars: Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, Cynthia Erivo, Colin Farrell, Brian Tyree Henry, Daniel Kaluuya, Jacki Weaver, Carrie Coon, Robert Duvall, Liam Neeson
Director: Steve McQueen
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Oh man did I get behind on my reviews.  Theoretically I will be going to the movies in a few hours, but it could well just be one flick as I am so behind on my film reviews, particularly for 2018 pictures, that I could easily spend the next day just writing up here and still not get caught up (I am a Thanksgiving orphan today, but am thankful for all of those near and far that I love, particularly this year).  We're going to start out by reviewing the most recent movie I saw and see how far I can get while working my way backwards, with Widows being a picture that I caught on Tuesday night.  Steve McQueen's latest has had a lot of press in the past few days for a poor marketing campaign that resulted in a disappointing box office performance even though the reviews have been kind, with many wondering whether or not it will miss major Oscar nominations like McQueen's last film (Best Picture victor 12 Years a Slave) as a result.  While I can't get to the Oscar question quite yet, I can definitely add in my two cents on the film, and its misleading advertising campaign.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film focuses on the lives of three widows whose husbands, members of Harry Rawlings's (Neeson) mob, recently died.  Harry's widow, Veronica (Davis), is a stoic woman who used to represent the teacher's union, and seems intent to know as little about her husband's dealings as possible, though you get the sense that she knew roughly what was happening and just didn't care.  The two have a seemingly strong marriage, but as the movie progresses, in flashbacks we understand that it was more complicated than that, with their son dying at the hands of a white police officer, and them being increasingly isolated from each other in the years since.  Harry's death resulted in roughly 3 million dollars being burned up, and the two men he stole it from Jamal Manning (Kaluuya), a candidate for alderman, and his sadistic brother Jatemme (Kaluuya), threaten to kill her if they don't get the money.  She recruits two other widows whose husbands died in the same sting that killed Harry named Linda (Rodriguez) and Alice (Debicki), and they plan on finishing Harry's next heist, robbing from the home of Jamal Manning's opponent Jack Mulligan (Farrell), who is looking to succeed his father Tom (Duvall) as City Alderman, with his eyes on one day becoming the Mayor of Chicago.

That's quite the thick plot, and the film, clocking in at 129 minutes, might get its best compliment from me in that it makes total sense and doesn't meander too much as we get to the eventual showdown.  There's little excess here, and McQueen has assembled the sort of ensemble you can only get if your last film won Best Picture.  Seriously-these are some of the best actors working (I haven't even mentioned Carrie Coon, Cynthia Erivo, & Jacki Weaver, all of whom are also on the call sheet), and you don't pull together thespians like this without some terrific work being had.  Debicki has gotten the lion's share of the kudos, and it's partially because this might be her most mainstream effort yet, going toe-to-toe with someone like Viola Davis, but it's probably just because she's sensational.  There's this great scene where she has to play opposite Weaver as her mother, trying to hold back an array of emotions, while the wrong ones keep sputtering out, and I loved the way she seems to be both a vulnerable person and someone who could take on the likes of Davis's Veronica.  Kaluuya gets the showiest part in the cast as Jatemme, a monstrous close-to-cameo role where his huge eyes and deliberate line readings result in genuine fear whenever he's on screen, but Debicki probably is the one who will get the most offers out of this film, and considering I've been cheering her on for years now, that's reason enough to see Widows.

The problem for McQueen's film is that it is marketed as an art house film, but it's frequently too conventional for such things.  That seems to be a problem for box office in recent years (look at something like mother! for another example), but he'd have been better off selling this as a smart action movie, which is what it is.  The further he delves into the marriage of Harry (who, spoiler alert again, is in fact not dead but shacking up with Carrie Coon and their infant son) and Veronica, the less we know about our leading lady.  Davis is a great orator and speech-giver as Veronica, but I'll admit that this felt more like her just showing off than finding a depth in her character.  I had a similar problem with parts of her performance in Fences, with her feeling too theatrical in her delivery, but chalked that up to her having played the part in the Cort Theater and it just came naturally after inhabiting the role for so long.  Widows doesn't have that excuse.  Davis can be mesmerizing, but I left knowing nothing about Veronica, to the point where the ending makes little sense (she sees Alice and smiles...but did she even like Alice?  And why-they hated each other right up until the end of the movie?).  There's stuff on the page that Davis could have taken advantage of, but her marriage feels paint-by-numbers, with her grief only informing certain checks on the film (I loved the way she brought her dog with her everywhere after Jatemme threatened him, not wanting to lose another loved one), but it feels like something was cut or missing on the editing room floor.  Like I said, these actors are too good to be left with a bad movie, which this certainly isn't, but it's also hard not to feel disappointed that considering the talent on-display here (Gillian Flynn wrote it!) that we didn't end up with an indisputable classic.

OVP: Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Film: Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017)
Stars: Denzel Washington, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo, Amari Cheatom
Director: Dan Gilroy
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actor-Denzel Washington)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars (But this is a way more interesting failure than this rating gives it credit for, all things considered, and certainly not the staid, inspirational legal drama I was imagining)

The short history of Roman J. Israel, Esq. seems to be a fascinating one.  As a general rule when I go to a movie, I try to know as little about it as possible.  Once I make the plunge into "this is a movie I will be seeing," the actual film itself I like to make elusive.  It's why I know very little about, say, the plot of even the next Star Wars movie, as you only get to experience a film for the first time once, and why not make that as special and unique as possible?  But it's rare that I head into a movie like Roman J. Israel, Esq., which I know virtually nothing about other than Denzel Washington appeared to be playing a goofy-looking lawyer.  I realized after the film when I watched the trailer that despite starring one of the most identifiable movie stars of the past thirty years, I'd never seen this advertised anywhere-not in a theater, not on TV-nowhere.  And this isn't for lack of trying, as I see movies on a near constant basis, particularly this time of year.  The film, despite its success in getting Washington nominated at the Globes and SAG Awards, has been a major box office dud, a rarity for Denzel, which may have had to do with poor advertising & marketing (and the ridiculous decision to open the film in limited release, when Washington has the star power to open pretty much any movie he wants nationally).  But after watching the movie, I will say that it's far more interesting than it seems on the surface (or even, if you have seen the trailer, from what the trailer lets on), even if I'm not sure it's a good movie, something I never would have expected before walking into the theater on Wednesday night (my most optimistic view was that it was going to be a good movie that's not very interesting).

(Spoilers Ahead) Washington stars as a socially awkward savant lawyer named Roman J. Israel, a man who works as the behind-the-scenes brains of a two-man law firm where suddenly, one day, his partner has a heart attack and slips into a coma.  We learn relatively quickly that due to the partner's overwhelming philanthropic spirit, the firm has been operating at a loss for years, and the partner's niece has hired a former law student of the partner's to take over all active cases, with the intention of quickly shutting down the law firm.  The new attorney, George (Farrell), sees potential in Roman, despite the latter's intense sense of right and confidence in his own ability to always be right.  Quickly Roman starts to apply his own, unbendable social ideas with that of a successful corporate law firm, usually to intense failure, but still provides an obvious value to the lawyers around him.  All-the-while he has met an attractive activist Maya (Ejogo) who sees him as someone who has been fighting for right for decades, and as something of a hero/love interest (their relationship is never entirely defined, but you get the sense both are teetering toward romance).

If that's where it were to end, I think this movie would have been a hit.  Intensely boring and played out, but a hit.  But Gilroy is an interesting filmmaker, and the man who created Nightcrawler is not going to just stick to a script that would have been at home with Henry Fonda at the lead in 1958.  Instead, he leans in and has Roman start to not only question his rigid morality, but abandon it fully in the light of an incredible opportunity, where a client dies having given Roman access to information work $100k.  Roman uses that privileged information to take back the reward money, and in the process we see someone make a Faustian bargain, someone whom you would least suspect, but who in a world where he is completely lost (you have the idea that his original partner was his entire life & he has almost no close friends), is reliant on his own, poor, decision-making process for the first time and makes truly heinous mistakes.  Washington plays Roman as a man who is probably mentally ill, not just socially awkward as the movie progresses.  His dealing with absolutes when it comes to everything that he encounters is shocking, and shows that his decades of loneliness and abandoning prospects of a family or social life in favor of work has clearly resulted in a depression of sorts, perhaps to the point where he's only capable of mimicking the actions of authority figures around him.  Toward the end of the film he starts dressing and acting like his boss, George, but cannot handle it because he doesn't know what lines George won't cross, which only spurs him into further recklessness.  That juxtaposition of Washington, a movie actor who rarely works with ambiguous characters, with a man whose inner-motives are impossible to decipher, is fascinating to watch.

I just wish it were more successful.  I oftentimes say that an interesting movie is better than a good one, and this isn't really a good movie, even if that was my initial impression.  It's too sloppy with its plot details.  It's fine that I leave the movie with a mixed opinion of Roman as a character, but Dan Gilroy occasionally doesn't seem to have one, and the ending is a joke (with Roman suddenly becoming a saint again despite his road to hell narrative).  Perhaps Gilroy, after Nightcrawler, wanted a character with a more concrete ending to his story, but in having Roman get a complete 180-degree turn back toward good, he abandons the idea that he enjoyed his rush of cash and luxury.  This forfeits the interesting middle and the complicated work Washington is creating at the center of one of his more interesting creations in recent years.  Overall, then, while I can't give it a recommendation, if you like movies with grey characters and ideas, this is probably worth your time.

OVP: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Film: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Folger, Alison Sudol, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Jon Voight
Director: David Yates
Oscar History: 2 nominations /1 win(Best Production Design, Costume*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

One of the most popular articles I've ever written on the blog came a few years ago when I decided to try to review all of the Harry Potter movies in one post.  In it, I confessed that my undying love for the Harry Potter universe made it difficult for me to objectively review the films.  I experienced the same encounter with The Hobbit a few years back, as the movies were good-but-not-landmarks like their predecessors, and totally unnecessary in the long scheme of things.  So I was genuinely curious when Fantastic Beasts came out if I would feel the same way.  Unlike The Hobbit, deeply connected to the prior movies, this film is almost completely outside of the realm of the following Harry Potter movies, with only a mention of Albus Dumbledore (as opposed to The Hobbit movies, which features Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum, and Legolas back in action, so it's harder to break it off from LOTR).  What I found was that while I was charmed by the movies, this was surely not Harry Potter, and not nearly as good even when it comes to trying to look at the films based solely on their merits.

(Spoilers Ahead) The picture, much like how The Hobbit went with a lighter touch, with as much time spent on exploring the world of New York City's wizards as the many creatures discovered by one Mr. Newt Scamander (Redmayne), who is a befuddled but kind.  He's not the innately talented wizard that Harry Potter is, but instead more of a Neville Longbottom type crossed with perhaps a splash of Dumbledore's natural curiosity.  The movie unfolds with a growing worry about the rise of Gellert Grindelwald, a sort of predecessor to Voldemort, whom we know to be the love of a young Albus Dumbledore's life through interviews that Rowling has done since the book series was published.  As we move on, madness of course ensues with Newt's creatures causing much havoc throughout the city, him being accused of helping Grindelwald while it's actually Grindelwald (in disguise as Colin Farrell's Percival Graves) who is manipulating a powerful young wizard named Credence Barebone (Miller, and no, Rowling has not lost her gift for the bon mot moniker) who is behind all of the doom-and-gloom of the city.  The day is saved when Grindelwald is stopped, Newt leaves (but promises to return to see his new friend Tina), and we are given ample room for sequels as we know that Grindelwald will continue to find ways to menace in the future.

The movie has a few lovely touches.  The best part would surely be Alison Sudol's dreamy, charming Queenie, Tina's sister who becomes enamored with Newt's muggle (or No-Maj, as it were) friend Jacob.  Pretty much any scene she's in Sudol steals, and announces herself as the obvious fan favorite of this franchise.  I also quite liked the bizarreness of Samantha Morton's performance, which was so weirdly out-of-place and much heavier than the rest of the movie was trying to accomplish.  Rowling, responding to criticism of her world a bit too aggressively in the movie, occasionally throws out things that feel tacked-on or specifically placed to earn her praise (this is by-far the most "woke" of the Harry Potter pictures in terms of progressive politics), but making the world a bit darker, resembling in some ways the turns her last three books took, is perhaps the most welcome development.

Otherwise, though, I left appreciating the nostalgia it brought but wishing that Rowling had left her world alone.  The stretching and pulling of Harry Potter feels like it has hit its breaking point, meaning we're seeing things we once found special become too commodified and commercial, and the effects in this film feel less authentic to the world of Harry Potter and more geared toward an easy translation into an amusement park.  Outside of Queenie and the strange climactic scene where Morton's sadistic mother learns the truth about her child, there's nothing special here.  There's certainly nothing cool about the magic.  Both Redmayne and Waterston underplay their characters so dreadfully that they lack charisma, and really you don't want to spend more time with them.  And the fact that they traded Colin Farrell in for Johnny Depp as the future lead of the franchise is a pretty much unforgivable sin.  All-in-all, I can't promise I won't tune in again (my HP immunities being weak), but this was hardly worth re-opening the memory of Harry Potter so quickly.

Those are my thoughts on Fantastic Beasts, which bizarrely won the Best Costume Oscar and yet another citation for Stuart Craig, but can't really compete in any way, shape, or form with the original franchise.  What were your thoughts on the picture?  It wears more poorly in the memory than I expected (I originally gave it a three-star rating, and have stuck with that even if this review reads more like a 2-star one), but I'm curious for anyone who has seen the movie multiple times-does it hold up?  Share below!

The Beguiled (2017)

Film: The Beguiled (2017)
Stars: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning
Director: Sofia Coppola
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Sofia Coppola run the gamut between movies that I adore for all-time (Lost in Translation) to the best of the year (The Bling Ring) to pictures I don't quite get the hype surrounding (Marie Antoinette), but they're always worth the time investment.  For some reason her films are always greeted with criticism that they are too similar in focusing on the world of rich, white women (suspiciously a criticism that isn't levied at Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, or Paul Thomas Anderson, but you draw your own conclusions there), and while there is some truth to that, her movies still have a feminism in them that few other mainstream pictures have, and I rarely leave uninterested in the movies.  Thus, I caught The Beguiled with an ardent fan's interest, curious to see where her latest film (one that has largely disappeared at this point from the film year conversation) ranked in my personal estimation.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film takes place in the waning days of the Civil War, where Martha (Kidman) runs a girl school within the ruins of a largely abandoned South, assisted by a dowdy Edwina (Dunst), who dreams of getting out.  One day, one of the girls in the school comes across a handsome, wounded Union corporal, John McBurney (Farrell), who has abandoned the battlefield and is in desperate need of medical treatment.  Despite trepidations, Martha and the students decide to let him stay at the school, and slowly there's a game of cat-and-mouse, with John seducing the lonely women who have been neglected of attention through the war, and starts winning their favor until Edwina, who has become madly in love with him and views him as her escape from "spinsterhood," finds him having sex with the eldest student Alicia (Fanning).  She pushes him down the stairs, and in the process he breaks his leg badly, to the point where Martha (whom he has also spurned) feels like she needs to amputate the leg.  It is never entirely clear whether this was the only option, but Corporal McBurney is convinced they crippled him out of spite and vows revenge, eventually getting a gun and holding the women hostage until Martha finds a way to poison him, even though Edwina has forgiven him and plans to marry him.  Corporal McBurney dies, to the devastation of Edwina, who viewed him as her only way out of this existence, and the film ends just as it began, with the women alone in the house, with no implication of how this random man has changed their lives, if at all.

The film functions almost best if you view this as something removed from the South.  Aside from the two teachers, five students, and the corporal, there is only one other allusion to actual humans in the outside world, when the Confederate soldiers come looking for the soldier.  Part of me wished that they had skipped this portion of the picture, as it could just as easily be a strange Purgatory or Hell, a punishment for the misgivings of war or of the soldier himself, as the isolation of the picture is its best attribute.  The movie ends so closely to the beginning you could view this as a sadistic Groundhog Day, and suddenly later that day they will find a different wounded soldier in the woods.  These women quite literally only have each other when the corporal comes into the house, disrupting their fragile ecosystem of boredom and trying their best to carry on in the face of a seemingly never-ending war.  When the film plays with this idea, of them trying desperately to end a cycle that seems too oppressive to overcome, it makes for very interesting film.

But it doesn't seem as intrigued by this concept, and when reality strikes, it feels a bit too soft.  The motives of Corporal John appear too accidental, and that of Martha perhaps a bit too strained.  It isn't entirely clear what Corporal John did to deserve the ire of these women except refuse to love them all, and in the process it's hard to tell in the first half who exactly the villain is supposed to be.  When Corporal John goes mad and puts a gun on the students in the second half, it feels almost like a copout, with the hanging question of whether they have just maimed a largely innocent man (albeit one with a wandering eye) for no reason other than jealousy.  Coppola doesn't play with this idea enough, and the ending becomes a bit predictable and doesn't idle around in the fascinating way the first half of the picture does, like a long plantation version of Marienbad, but that doesn't mean there aren't some fine elements in the picture, and overall I was a fan, even if it never approaches the heights of something like Lost in Translation or the sharpness of The Bling Ring.

Those were my thoughts on The Beguiled-how about yours?  At this point I'm assuming a lot of you have caught the picture, so anyone else want to weigh in on where they thought Coppola was going with the movie?  Share your thoughts below!

OVP: The Lobster (2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

100 Years of the Landmark Uptown

Over the next week, the Landmark Uptown theater, an icon of the Minneapolis landscape and one of my personal meccas as a longtime resident of the Twin Cities who has a penchant for the movies, will celebrate its 100th anniversary.  It's hard to imagine that 100 years ago a movie theater stood in Minneapolis, still a relatively young city, just a few years after the advent of the movies in general, and yet has still survived today.  I wanted to make sure and honor the theater in some way on the blog, so I figured the best way to do this would be to recount five of my favorite memories through the years at the theater (these, it should be recalled, are my favorite memories in the theaters, not necessarily the best movies I've seen there).

1. Milk on Opening Night

Still my favorite night, ever, in a movie theater.  I went to the film early, hoping to catch one of the biggest Oscar movies of the season before a trip to see my family (I knew my brother would want a full verdict on one of the big AMPAS movies that year).  It was an incredible experience-a theater full of gay men, energized and moved by what was happening in Gus van Sant's picture.  Not only were there cheers in the audience when it was announced that Minneapolis would be the first city to ban workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian people, people actually got up and applauded (the film also got a standing ovation at the end of the film).  It's worth noting that this was in the specter of Proposition 8 and Minnesota has several key moments in the film, but sitting near the front of a packed theater with this much energy-it was truly movie magic.

2. Academy Award Short Films

The short films used to be in the Lagoon, but in recent years have come to be in the Uptown, and I see them all each year, so this is definitely something I'm thankful for in the theater.  It's hard to pinpoint a favorite one, though I'd probably go with the above short, if only because my mom couldn't stop laughing during it (it's also one of the many movie traditions I have with my parents-our annual trip to see the animated short films at the Uptown).

3. Seating Arrangements at The Invisible Woman

Okay, even Felicity Jones probably doesn't remember this movie, but I recall vividly that this was my first trip to the Uptown where I sat in the balcony (I'm almost always a floor-seat person) after the renovations, but a friend of mine wanted to sit upstairs since she'd never been there before, so we pick the seats, and not only are we one of the only couples not upstairs clearly "on a date," but we accidentally picked one of the theaters' love seat chairs.  For the entire first ten minutes of the movie, a somber onscreen affair, we could not stop giggling to each other.

4. In F@#%ing Bruges

My best friend from college and I initially bonded over his desire to learn more about movies, and my desire to watch movies with him.  One of the best times we ever had at the movies was while watching this Colin Farrell comedy, which repeatedly and profanely disparaged the Belgian city.  For weeks after this we couldn't get through a conversation without randomly saying "fucking Bruges" to a series of mass laughter.  Perhaps the balcony is the best place to get the humor out of Uptown movies, as I also saw this upstairs since he hadn't been before.

5. Wild Tales Second Date

I always know that I like a guy when I propose we go to one of the Landmark theaters for a date, as it's about as close to home for me as anything in the Twin Cities.  I distinctly remember really liking the guy I went to Wild Tales with but I wasn't sure if he liked me back.  About twenty minutes into the movie, he whispers over to me and said, "this movie's awesome-I'm having a great time" with a smile.  Needless to say I got another date (and a kiss in the parking lot) afterwards.

Those are my favorite memories of the Landmark Uptown-what are yours?  Share in the comments and make sure and celebrate by visiting soon if you're in the Minneapolis area!

100,000 Hits!!!!

I am very excited to tell you that, as of today, we have officially hit 100,000 hits on the blog!!  I know I started this blog many years ago (when I was in college, even), but it really got reinvented when we decided to do the Oscar Viewing Project.  I know we don't always get a lot of comments (hint, hint), but I do love that we get so many visitors, and in honor of that, I'd figure I'd invite over some of my guys to celebrate:

Thanks for all of the support everyone!!!

OVP: Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Film: Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
Stars: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak, Bradley Whitford
Director: John Lee Hancock
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I sometimes feel like I should take Prozac right before Oscar season, considering the complete depression that is about to set in from all of the movies.  I mean, just look at last year’s Best Picture lineup: hurricanes, slavery, strokes, mental illness, terrorism, and constant death.  It’s rough out there for an OVP-writer.  I also have to admit that I occasionally have trouble in my writing finding the greatness in a small or pleasant film-the crowd-pleaser was such a jovial part of Oscar’s history in the 1940’s through the 1960’s-films like It’s a Wonderful Life, An American in Paris, Gigi, The Sound of Music, that it’s worth celebrating a bit when a fun film like Babe makes it into the Oscar race.  Of course, for every excellent Babe, there’s an awful Seabiscuit, so I will say that I was nervous headed into Saving Mr. Banks, this year’s feel-good Oscar contender.

And yet, I totally buy into it.  The cross-promotion with Disney crossed the line into obscene during Emma Thompson’s hotel scene, and we still had an hour’s worth of the happiest place on earth, but it works.  Disney is fun-I have no problem with it at the movies.

And this movie is fun-genuine, complete fun.  There’s nothing wrong with that, particularly when it’s filled with strong performances from everyone involved.  Emma Thompson, who has received the bulkload of the hosannas, is deliciously watchable-this is the Thompson we always see in interviews but rarely get the chance to enjoy on-screen.  She’s full of vigor, candor, wit, and as the film goes on, deep substance.  Thompson’s Mrs. Travers (never Pamela, and we eventually learn why), is someone who has been disappointed by life.  She had a deeply traumatic childhood, which unfolds in flashbacks throughout the film.  This device threatens to be cloying (telling multiple stories is always a risk, because the film rarely gets the balance right and one of the stories is generally more interesting than the other), but since we are well aware of the endings of both, the balance seems quite right.  Toward the end of the film, when the clearly depressed and traumatized Thompson has to deal with her demons, Mrs. Travers’ hard-earned tough exterior melts in a scene that again, should be cliché, but isn’t.

That might be the battle cry of this movie, which improves in your memory the further you get from it: “it should be cliché, but isn’t.”  Tom Hanks, playing a jovial, uncomplicated Walt Disney, should be grating and saccharine, but he comes from such a genuine place that I found myself rooting for him just as much as Thompson (after watching this film, one of the great mysteries of this year’s Oscar race remains how he never got any traction considering he is very much her equal in terms of quality).  The scene where he puts his hand on her shoulder while she is weeping, watching her on-screen father walk away during the Mary Poppins premiere-it’s practically perfect in every way.  Only Hanks has that sort of instant warmth and resonant tenor to pull off such a moment without risking hokum.

Honestly, though, the casting director of this film deserves a reward of some sort (is there a Casting Directors’ Guild Awards?  If so, someone nominate Ronna Kress for it).  B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman sink right into their fraternal composers effortlessly and Rachel Griffiths has exactly the right dose of magic to inspire a beloved children’s character without ever stretching believability.  And, though he doesn’t have the prestige that Thompson or Hanks inspire (despite the fact that he probably should considering his work in In Bruges), Colin Farrell as young Mrs. Travers' drunken, magical father is so strong.  It’s not quite fair to say that he’s been ignored (every review I’ve read adds in the same caveat that “no one is talking about Farrell, but he’s quite good”), but in terms of talking about him in the Oscar conversation, he is unfairly being skipped over in favor of Hanks, and they both should be in the discourse.

In terms of Oscar, I don’t know where this ranks (I try not to discuss too much with Oscar chances because it so horribly dates a review, but they’re less than two weeks away so I’m going there).  If the Weinsteins were behind a film like this we’d already be calling it a theoretical spoiler for the Best Picture race, but Disney isn’t a major player with AMPAS when it comes to their live-action fare (worth noting, the original Mary Poppins lost to My Fair Lady in the Best Picture race).  I do think that if they see it, Thompson will make it, and I wouldn’t be stunned if Hanks managed dual nominations, but we shall see.

And speaking of seeing-have you (with Mr. Banks, that is)?  What were your thoughts?  Were you surprised how much you enjoyed the film?  Share in the comments!

Celebrity Crushes

A few weeks ago, I did a little Friday fun article about cute guys with puppies.  It's been a tough news week this week (and felt oddly long for a four-day work week, didn't it?), and so I figured I'd do something in a similar vein for y'all today.

Perhaps the best party question that anyone can bring up to tie a bunch of people together is to ask "who is your celebrity crush?"  Everyone has one-even other celebrities.  And because I'm always trying to get some comments (hint, hint) and get a conversation going, I figured that I'd go with my favorite celebrity crushes.

But I couldn't quite decide on how to do it, because limiting yourself to just one seemed a bit cruel and unusual.  So I decided to pick my crushes from different mediums.  Here's who I came up with-share yours in the comments!

Movies: Honestly, movie stars are so beautiful it's hard to pin down just one crush choice, isn't it?  I think right at the moment it's either Michael Fassbender or Michael B. Jordan, both of whom are super talented (I like guys with a little substance), but there's always a place for Colin Farrell, who has been my celeb crush since I was a teenager, and despite some rocky times (anyone see that movie where he was in the phone booth?), we're still going strong.

Television: This could go one of two ways-I obviously love Darren Criss and Chord Overstreet, as anyone who reads my Glee recaps can attest, but Adam Driver, who plays the disturbing and honest Adam Sackler on Girls has become a huge favorite over the last year, so I think I'd probably go with all three.

Music: This was going to be just Frank Ocean (I've been thinking about you...), but last night I got into a Chelsea Lately YouTube vortex, and saw her interview with Drake from a few years back, and with those eyes, I have to include him too.

Literature: Some of you may not feel the same way, but I have crushed on Dave Eggers since the first time I read one of his books (like I said, talent is sexy).  Plus, I like curly-haired guys.

Politics: Picking Aaron Schock would make me a horrible person, wouldn't it?  It would, right?  Okay, I'll skip him then, and go with a Democrat: former Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Joshua Svaty.

YouTube: Again, lots of choices here, but this one I'm not going to hedge between multiple people: The Lean Machines' John Chapman has to be it.

Athletics: I feel really bad leaving Andy Murray out, considering what a terrible day he had yesterday, so I'm going to put both him and Nathan Adrian here.

Journalism: It might be stretching to include Entertainment Weekly as journalism (or journalists as celebrities), but box office wizard Grady Smith is so cute that I'll make an exception.

Fictional: Shut up-we all have crushes on fictional characters!  For most people, it's Mr. Darcy, but for me, it's the Human Torch.  This is a childhood crush, and though I've never seen the movie because of my love of the Human Torch and Fantastic Four in general, I still approve of Chris Evans playing the character.

And now I'm turning it over to you fine people-we'll be having a return to serious topics this weekend, finishing up our last entry in the 2012 OVP, reviewing a variety of movies, and discussing the Colorado State Senate recalls, but before we jump into that, let's have some fun-who are your celebrity crushes?