OVP: Actress (2021)

OVP: Best Actress (2021)

The Nominees Were...

Jessica Chastain, The Eyes of Tammy Faye

Olivia Colman, The Lost Daughter

Penelope Cruz, Parallel Mothers

Nicole Kidman, Being the Ricardos

Kristen Stewart, Spencer

My Thoughts: We're finishing off the 2021 acting races with Best Actress, a category that reads as kind of weird even though the actors themselves don't.  Three former winners, a multiple-time nominee, and a promising newcomer playing a princess is the bread-and-butter of this category, but if you look at the films, these are good actresses (and largely good performances) in somewhat forgettable movies.  Featuring some films that were relegated to streaming platforms, a lot of the majesty of this lineup feels a bit underwhelming even if the actual work at hand doesn't read that way.

A good example of this is Colman, who is in a fine film, and is giving a splendid performance in a movie, well, few people seem to have seen.  Colman is marvelous here, though, so I can't quibble with the choice itself (and generally I'm fine with Oscar picking obscurity, it just feels like every film was kind of "ehh" here in a way the other acting categories didn't).  She brings such pathos to her character, even when the character wouldn't want that, and does a marvelous job of giving us a complicated look at womanhood, maturity, and the unrealistic expectations we give to mothers.  One of our best working actors, hopefully this isn't her last outing with AMPAS.

Colman's movie is good, which you can't really advertise for Jessica Chastain.  The movie brushes by huge swaths of the real life Bakkers, particularly anything involving the complicated sexuality of husband Jim.  Chastain is the best part of the movie, and does her darndest to sell Tammy Faye, a walking cartoon who is hard to make fascinating because she's so devout & has such faith in the people around her, she reads as two-dimensional even if that's basically who she was in real-life.  But Chastain can only do so much in a movie that's not interested in some of her character layering, and she's working so hard in some scenes it feels like she's trying to make a bad movie good (and she's not going to do it).

Nicole Kidman, likewise, is much better than her movie.  Kidman was such an unusual choice to play Lucille Ball, but it largely works.  She doesn't do Ball's voice & she doesn't look like her, but she gives a decent performance as a woman who spent a decade trying to get what she currently has, and feels she constantly needs to prove to herself that she's worthy of her success, she's been trying to retain it for so long.  But the movie is dreadful, and she's saddled with huge speeches that go nowhere and do nothing...a script this poor is going to hurt any performance, and I think it sometimes makes too indulgent in later scenes.

Kristen Stewart is, for the record, a wonderful actress; in my mind she already had two nominations by 2021 for Clouds of Sils Maria and Personal Shopper.  But her work in Spencer is not good.  Some of that is based on Pablo Larrain (unlike Aaron Sorkin, Larrain has proven before he's a very strong director so this came as a surprise) not knowing how to ground this film in any sort of reality (even a fantastical one).  Stewart's accent work & observation of the real-life Diana's facial expressions are to-die-for (particularly given her LA roots), but she feels adrift in a movie that's largely rudderless.  The film (and her work) just can't find a center, and this becomes a missed opportunity as a result.

The best movie of this bunch is probably Parallel Mothers, though it reads more as a classic because Pedro & Penelope have made so many good movies that you could be forgiven for forgetting that this is only "pretty good" (the third act is filled with too many swings that don't connect).  Cruz is superb, though, hanging on during all of the soap opera moves that the movie gives her titular mother, and reminding us that she's capable of greatness when given the chance.  Like Colman, one of our best working actors, and I hope she doesn't make us wait another decade for a performance this stylized & moving.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama we came very close to Oscar's lineup, with Kidman winning and the only new nominee being Lady Gaga (House of Gucci) instead of Cruz.  For Musical/Comedy, Rachel Zegler (West Side Story) won against Marion Cotillard (Annette), Alana Haim (Licorice Pizza), Jennifer Lawrence (Don't Look Up), & Emma Stone (Cruella).  SAG favored Chastain for their win, with Colman, Gaga, Kidman, & Jennifer Hudson (Respect) the remaining nominees, while BAFTA went totally balls-to-the-walls crazy by giving Joanna Scanlan (After Love) the win atop Gaga, Haim, Emilia Jones (CODA), Renate Reinsve (The Worst Person in the World), & Tessa Thompson (Passing), the first time since 1987 that none of the BAFTA nominees for Best Actress also got in with Oscar.  In sixth place was surely Lady Gaga, and honestly...what a relief that Oscar went with Stewart or Cruz over a performance as bad as hers.  Gaga, I'm sorry, has yet to give a decent acting performance (she's a very good singer & songwriter, but she's no thespian), and getting in for work as bad as Gucci...ooph, that would've been a bad look for Oscar (and given her precursor support, she might well have won!).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: The name that did show up quite a bit during precursor season that would've been a great choice would've been Alana Haim, who (like Gaga) is a singer who is in a storied director's vision, but she actually seems well-matched for it, and sells the unusual duet at the top of Licorice Pizza.

Oscar’s Choice: Due to the chaos of the year, and a quick-trending "overdue" narrative that surrounded Jessica Chastain late-in-the-race (even if it's not entirely clear that was super true), she won against Kidman & Cruz, Tom Cruise's exes competing for silver.

My Choice: In a very tight race, I'm going to go with Cruz over Colman, if only because I think Colman is held back by not feeling connected to Jessie Buckley's work as her younger self.  Behind these two are Chastain, Kidman, & Stewart, in that order.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Are you fine with Chastain getting her big moment, or would you have stood with me for a second round of Cruz?  Am I on my own in thinking this lineup is kind of a shrug even if it has some world-class actresses?  And am I the only person who doesn't get Gaga: Movie Star?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2021: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2021

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

OVP: The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)

Film: The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)

Stars: Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Cherry Jones, Vincent D'Onofrio, Fredric Lehne, Sam Jaeger

Director: Michael Showalter

Oscar History: 2 nominations/2 wins (Best Actress-Jessica Chastain*, Makeup & Hairstyling*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Fame is a strange beast, and it's also a weird conundrum when taken in conjunction with something that people are not typically famous for.  In modern society, we think of famous figures associated largely with their jobs-movie stars, politicians, athletes...these are the professions we are used to someone being famous for.  But during the 1970's & 80's, America's conservative moment allowed for a different type of celebrity: the televangelist.  It's hard to grasp today, but people like Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker were a BIG deal in the United States.  At the height of their fame, they had 20 million people tuning in for their show, and had a theme park that rivaled Disneyland in terms of annual visitors.  Their fall was big news, across every country in America, and they were well-known enough that they were played by Phil Hartman & Jan Hooks on Saturday Night Live.  Today, they aren't well-remembered...the scandal was part of that, but in the same way we don't have a great idea of what opera superstars or painting superstars are, the televangelist movement has been relegated to small potatoes in terms of celebrity cache, and so I was curious when I saw The Eyes of Tammy Faye-how would the movie get across the seismic impact they briefly had on American culture?  What I found was a film that got that message across, but in doing so glossed over huge swaths of their story to the detriment of the film at-large.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie follows the lives of Jim (Garfield) and Tammy Faye Bakker (Chastain) from their humble beginnings in rural Minnesota to their eventual movement to the televangelist circuit, becoming at one point the largest stars in its orbit (though as the film points out, never the largest power-brokers).  They both seem to have love at the center of their ministries, but while Jim is more out to prove himself & make a fortune for himself, Tammy Faye seems to struggle with the concept of anything other than love.  Yes, she sings & enjoys the fame, but she also genuinely cannot jive with some of the hate (particularly for AIDS patients and gay people) that people like Jerry Falwell (D'Onofrio) are intent on taking down as part of their movement.  When the Bakkers are found out for both financial scandal (they embezzled mountains of money that was pledged to projects for PTL, their network) and sex scandal (both Bakkers had affairs, Jim purportedly homosexual ones, though I'll be honest I feel like the screenwriters totally glossed over the rape allegations levied at Jim by Jessica Hahn), we see their fall from grace, divorce, & what it was like for Tammy Faye specifically in the years after when she went from one of the country's most recognizable figures to basically a joke.

The film itself is a conundrum, because it does address Tammy Faye herself really well.  Chastain is saddled with a particularly difficult part.  Tammy Faye as written (and based on all accounts, Tammy Faye in real life), was kind of the embodiment of a ridiculous person, but one so genuine you couldn't help but love her.  Chastain does that balance well-she makes sure that we understand that Tammy Faye isn't a fool, but she is someone who truly loves the people around her & wants the best for everyone.  In a cynical world, she is a woman of true, unadulterated faith in her fellow man (and her lord).  This can read as cloying, but Chastain pushes through that need & just makes her feel authentic.  It's a very good performance from an actress making something of a comeback in 2021.

The problem is that the rest of the film can't keep up this energy.  This is particularly an issue for Garfield's Jim.  Garfield is the right fit for a man at odds with his own sexuality & who is trying to prove himself on multiple fronts-he's the kind of actor who can let his inner-world spring forth, even when he doesn't want it to.  But the director doesn't know how to engage with Jim's sexuality (which is never properly confirmed even if it's all-but-alluded-to), and how the man himself deals with it.  And unlike Tammy Faye, we don't understand where the line between Jim's true faith & where he's pretending is drawn.  Combine the cartoonish villainy of Jerry Falwell (which I'll forgive to a degree since it's probably true-to-life for the hateful televangelist) and the bizarre handling of Ron Messner (who is a significant character in the film, yet the picture itself never talks about how he eventually marries Tammy Faye), and you have a movie that doesn't quite work, even if Chastain is doing her darndest to sell it.

OVP: Molly's Game (2017)

Film: Molly's Game (2017)
Stars: Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, Michael Cera
Director: Aaron Sorkin
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

As a critic, you have to learn a bit to judge on a curve, because most people who finally make it to the big-screen are relatively talented.  Unless you have an exception like a pop star who tries their hand at acting, is no good at it but is too famous not to keep trying (I stand behind my assessment that Justin Timberlake gave the worst performance of any actor this year that I've seen in Wonder Wheel, and I am already girding myself for having to see A Star is Born with the notoriously wooden Lady Gaga), most actors these days are strong enough if they get to headline a major motion picture to at least not embarrass themselves.  There are exceptions every year (Lily Collins in Rules Don't Apply last year comes screaming to mind for some reason, as does John Malkovich in Deepwater Horizon), but by-and-large it's pretty rare for an actor to be giving a heinous performance in a major motion picture if they are a trained professional.

(Spoilers Ahead) But like I said you have to judge on a curve, as there are certainly performers that are consistently more talented than others, and few actors working today are as talented as Jessica Chastain.  I would argue that in terms of combining movie star charisma, chameleon-like acting ability, and just general watchability, Chastain might be the most electric actor currently working in movies.  Like Meryl Streep in the 1980's or Al Pacino in the 1970's, every performance is something to behold.  It might not always be the best performance of the year (she should have, by my estimation, at least three Oscar nominations at this point, however, and probably one trophy), but no one's more consistent.  Which makes Molly's Game a true conundrum as the combination of Chastain's impossibly strong ability as the lead and Sorkin's intense flare for auteurist writing seeping through in the script makes this seem like a good movie.  How could it not be?  It sounds good, the lead performance is compelling-isn't that what makes a movie good?  But beneath the pleasant surface, you quickly find the fault-lines that not even a performer like Chastain can save.

The film focuses on Molly Bloom (Chastain), a former Olympic skiing prospect who, after an injury and a rough relationship with her father, finds herself hosting a high-stakes poker game for her jackass of a boss.  She is aided by a Player X (Cera, who is terrific as he sends up what is clearly Tobey Maguire in this role), a movie star who is so famous that guys will come and want to lose tens of thousands of dollars to him.  The film's first half unfolds well, albeit with us knowing that Molly will fall as we're flashing to the "present" where she's under arrest for connections to the Russian mob.  Watching the different stories that came out of her card table are fascinating, and Chastain well-manages Molly's big city dreams and her shock at how seedy men with unlimited amounts of money can be.  In many ways it's stealing from GoodFellas, but really-at this point what crime movie isn't stealing from GoodFellas, and it does it better than most.

The movie, though, flails under the pressure of too much plot in the second half.  Sorkin is too good of a writer to not keep the grandiose speeches coming (though he also can't miss the "big heart" moments, like the one between Chastain and Costner-as-her-father late in the picture is drowning in corniness), and Chastain seems tailor-made as a performer to deliver his gigantic "I am a walking thesaurus" soliloquies, but the connection to the characters seem lost without a director to tamper down Sorkin's showing off.  Chastain plays Molly as largely a saint with a drug problem, someone who is ridiculously smart but somehow is to be believed that she didn't know the Russian mob was into her game to the degree that it was, and who was more than willing to break the law (repeatedly) with little consequence because other guys in the game were doing much worse.  It's a problem because it's hard to forget that this is real-life, and in real-life it's hard to imagine that Bloom, whip-smart and clearly driven, didn't have some inkling of what was happening in these games and perhaps got off because she was the smallest fish in this pond and wasn't worth the effort when you're talking about violent criminals.  Her morality and code of not naming names never gets across, considering so often she's cutting corners late in the film, and blaming it solely on the drugs feels like a cop-out.  Chastain's biggest weakness is that (perhaps for legal reasons, considering this is based on Bloom's book) she can't land these huge moments because it takes too big of a suspension-of-belief to assume that our intelligent protagonist was so strung out on cocaine and Adderall that she wasn't able to see the obvious criminal implications in front of her but was able to spout off the witty bon mots of a Noel Coward character.  Here Sorkin's brilliance gets in the way of his plot (not an uncommon problem for his works), but it makes the movie ring false, and totally undercuts his big "all I have is my name" speech from Chastain.  As a result, the plot and the climax don't work.  The writing and Chastain are solid, but if they can't land the plot it doesn't matter-Molly's Game is all flare and no soul, and casting the best actress in Hollywood can't buy Sorkin an ending to a movie he doesn't know how to finish.

The Zookeeper's Wife (2017)

Film: The Zookeeper's Wife (2017)
Stars: Jessica Chastain, Johan Heldenbergh, Daniel Bruhl, Michael McElhatton
Director: Niki Caro
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

If you've read this blog for a while (and why shouldn't you-it's a very sporadic delight!), you might have realized that there are few things that hold truer in terms of filmic opinions than I don't particularly like true stories.  Yes, truth can occasionally be stranger than fiction (look, for example, at the moron running the country), but by-and-large truth isn't as strange as fiction.  For example, in real life you can quite easily know who will emerge victorious in a war or that in order for a story of history to be told, someone had to have lived through it to tell it.  This is a problem at the center of the recent picture The Zookeeper's Wife, based on the bestselling book by Diane Ackerman (as well as the largely forgotten real-life story).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Antonina Zabinska (Chestain), a Polish woman who runs the Warsaw Zoo with her husband Jan (Heldenbergh).  Antonina adores her animals, oftentimes romanticizing them in a way that may raise eyebrows to animal right's advocates (I include myself there, and I will admit that the sequences where she cradles a baby lion made me deeply uncomfortable).  After the attacks by the Germans, her zoo is destroyed (the strangest scene of the movie as this clearly happened in real life, and you don't think about how for a brief moment lions and tigers roamed the streets of major cities), and an opportunistic Nazi named Lutz Heck (Bruhl) convinces her to give him her most prized beasts, and then she is stunned when he starts shooting the rest of the animals, as he has become less interested in saving animals and now more interested in making Antonina his mistress.

The film's story takes a turn for the more traditional when it comes to WWII epics, as the Zabinska's start to use the cages and the intricate underground systems of the zoo to tunnel Jews from the work camps and out of Poland.  In total, we learn in the credits that over 300 people were saved by the Zabinskas during the war.  Filmically, we now what's going to happen of course-they are nearly found out, and then at the end of the war Heck and the Germans try to destroy the Zabinskas and the Jews that are still being harbored by them, but thankfully to no avail.  The film ends with Jan Zabinska, who had been shot during the Warsaw Uprising, being reunited with his wife in their zoo, which still stands today.

True stories, as I said above, can be captivating-this story is a remarkable one, and well worth the time investment if you want to pour through Ackerman's book but as a film it doesn't work.  Chastain seems so detached, far more focused on landing her Polish accent than finding something within her Antonina, and Bruhl is giving a pretty misguided performance as Heck, never giving him any layers other than lust and evil.  Both have been better, and honestly I don't recall either ever being this bland.  The movie goes exactly how you would expect, and while (again) it's a story that probably deserves to be told, Ackerman already did that and it doesn't translate well in cinema, as it comes across as dry and slow.  Overall, aside from some occasionally interesting sequences early in the picture involving the animals, you'd be better off skipping this and just going with the book.

Those are my thoughts on The Zookeeper's Wife, but if you've seen it-how about you?  Anyone want to jump to its defense, or is everyone more a fan of the novel?  What other recent films have failed where their books succeeded?  And what'd you think of Chastain's/Bruhl's performance?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Ten Mini Reviews

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

(Spoilers for the films may be ahead)

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

Deadpool

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

Dirty 30

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

Eye in the Sky

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

The Innocents

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

The Legend of Tarzan

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

The Light Between Oceans

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

Ranking: 3/5 stars

Miss Sloane

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

Paterson

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

Sunset Song

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

OVP: The Martian (2015)

Film: The Martian (2015)
Stars: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Director: Ridley Scott
Oscar History: 7 nominations (Best Picture, Actor-Matt Damon, Visual Effects, Adapted Screenplay, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

We continue on our week of reviewing the 2015 Oscar nominees with our seventh of the eight Best Picture nominees, The Martian.  Honestly, it's kind of weird to think about The Martian's trajectory throughout the entire Oscar process, because believe it or not, before Matt Damon missed at the SAG Awards and Ridley Scott randomly got shunned in Best Director, it was once the film everyone was trumpeting to win the Best Picture Oscar.  After those massive falls, despite a massive Box Office that approached $600 million, it is no longer in contention for awards that aren't of the technical variety, but with seven Oscar nominations it's still one of the biggest films of the year for February 28th.  Let's see if it earned its top spot, shall we?

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is based on the bestselling novel by Andy Weir, who is that wonderful authorial success story of a writer who put his novel out there for free after being rejected by numerous publishers, all-the-while eventually finding out that he had a bestseller on his hands and the very science-influenced novel got brought to the big-screen.  The story is of Marc Watney (Damon) and the crew of the Ares III, who are on a manned expedition in Mars in 2035, but are forced to cut short their mission when a dust storm compels them to leave the red planet early.  During the storm and the evacuation, Watney is struck by debris and the crew, led by Commander Melissa Lewis (Chastain), abandon him assuming that he has died. We find out later that he is, in fact, alive, and that he will have to find a way to travel over 3200 kilometers to the site of the Ares IV landing (four years away) while only having less than a year's worth of food.  Thanks to ingenuity and perseverance (and an incredible amount of intelligence brought down by bouts of bad luck) Watney survives the journey as his crew-mates eventually come back to rescue him.

The film comes on the heels of space dramas like Gravity and Interstellar, stories about nearby space and the impending, likely, space boom that will happen on Earth in the next couple of decades provided we don't end up in another Cold War.  However, while The Martian is a drama (don't let the Golden Globes fool you there), it doesn't follow in the nail-biting footsteps of Gravity nor the heavy-handedness of Interstellar.  The Martian is a space film with a lighter touch, and much of the film actually has a spryness that recalls something like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man more than the deep drama we expect from such a survival adventure.  Matt Damon as the film's central character is wonderful, even if he's stretching the movie star muscle a bit more than the actor's muscle, and we get to see the guy we fell in love with in the 1990's in films like The Rainmaker and Good Will Hunting and not the drabness of something like Invictus.  I also really loved the counter that the crew on the ground played against Watney, all hyper-seriousness (truly-at what point are people going to recognize the ridiculously strong winning streak that Kristen Wiig has created in the past few years-where is her Truman Show?).  While the remainder of the crew of the Ares III (which, considering Damon, Jessica Chastain, Sebastian Stan, and Kate Mara are all onboard, looks more like a Louis Vuitton ad than a spaceship roster) isn't really as interesting as one would hope, they also have their moments (which run the risk of melodrama).  Considering the big-name stars, it's actually quite stunning this film didn't score a nomination at the SAG Awards for Best Cast.

The film's light touch occasionally takes a bit of the heat out of the final third of the film as there's no question (like, say, in Gravity) that Watney will be rescued, but up until the final thirty minutes or so this is a wonderful ride.  I loved the way that the sets on Mars seemed so realistic, and the way that Watney's character found uses for everything and impelled his joy onto us as an audience when he succeeded (has a movie ever made potato-planting seem like such a rewarding endeavor?).  This is a bit of a nitpick-y complaint though, as overall this was a wonderfully-delightful styled summer blockbuster (even if it came out in October)-the kind of movie that used to win Best Picture nominations in the 1990's.  Well done to all involved.

Those are my thoughts on The Martian, a film that wears better in the old noggin that I initially thought it would upon first viewing it.  What about you-are you also intrigued by what Damon and Scott brought to the screen here, or were you hoping for something a wee bit more dramatic?  Why do you think Ridley Scott and Matt Damon came up somewhat short this awards season?  And how much do you think Andy Weir's next book will fetch from publishers after his first got so roundly rejected?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Women and the Best Picture Race

There have been a number of conversations about diversity at the Oscars this year, and while I was going to write an article on the subject, Nathaniel Rogers over at the Film Experience beat me to it, and did it so well that I feel that linking is the best way to add to the conversation (though please read through it if you want to have a conversation to improve diversity in Hollywood and not just want to complain about the Oscars).  As a result of this, but still wanting to contribute to the conversation, I decided to comment on something that actually got better this year than last year, though it's not where we want it to be yet (optimism is out-of-vogue on the internet, but I figured I'd give it a shot) and that is the amount of women that are in the Best Picture field.

As you may recall from last year, only one of the eight nominees for Best Picture featured a woman in a leading role (The Theory of Evrything's Felicity Jones), and only half of the films managed to pass the Bechdel Test.  This year we actually have a rosier picture, even if movies like Carol didn't manage to make it into the conversation, as nearly half of the films feature a female lead in their picture.  The rest of the field may have had some room for improvement, but let's take a rundown of the eight Best Pictures and the roles that women played in each of them (Spoilers Ahead for all eight films so if you haven't seen one, skip, only read the rest, and bookmark for a later date)

Film: The Big Short
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1? (I hate the IMDB method of only going with first person onscreen-list by order in the cast credits!).  As a result, I don't know if it was Finn Wittrock or in fact Marisa Tomei or Melissa Leo in the fifth position.  Let's go benefit of the doubt and assume it's Marisa Tomei even though screen-time wise it's not remotely her.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character? Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Absolutely nothing-she becomes a bit of a sounding board for Steve Carell, but really there's little she has to do with the film's resolution.
Does She Have a Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she doesn't-we never see Tomei outside of her life that involves her husband.
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Bridge of Spies
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Amy Ryan)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's in the final scene of the movie if I recall correctly (or at least near it), but she's mostly just there to remind James Donovan of what normalcy is in his world.  Her life has little bearing on the outcome of the picture.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she does not.  Amy's Mary is little more than window dressing in this film, someone who is there to support, occasionally cajole, but ultimately I don't know that she even has any scenes that don't feature her husband (she definitely doesn't have any scenes that don't center upon him).
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Brooklyn
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Saoirse Ronan and Julie Walters)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: With Ronan, she's actually the main character as this is one of the steps in the right direction in this category.  For Walters, she plays Ronan's landlord.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Ronan is an integral part of the ending of the film, and actually shapes her own narrative even if it is ultimately about deciding on a man (still, it's on deciding specifically which man she wants to be with which is very empowering).  For Walters, she really only features into the first half of the film, so she has no bearing on the ending.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, Ronan is the main character and most definitely has an evolution of her own, even outside of the main character.  For Walters, she does as well-she's been a landlord for years, has scenes interacting with her other female tenants, and while she rarely (if ever?) appears in a scene without Ronan's Eilis, it's clear she has other relationships in the film.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Constantly-the film's first half in particular is all about the relationships women have with each other and the common struggle of female immigrants in particular.

Film: Mad Max: Fury Road
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Charlize Theron and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: While Tom Hardy's Mad Max may get top-billing and the film uses his character for the title, this is all about the Imperator Furiosa, so this is another case where one of the women is in fact the main character.  In the case of Huntington-Whiteley's Splendid Angharad, she is one of the women that Furiosa is trying to save.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: In the end Furiosa ends up the savior of the Citadel, riding in as their new leader and essentially taking over.  Huntington-Whiteley has little bearing on the ending, but she too manages to at least live until the end and is welcomed back into the Citadel.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: This is true of both women.  Furiosa has been pining to get to her home of the Green Place and Max is incidental to this goal, while The Splendid Angharad has had a pretty crappy life up until this point, but it's clearly established and gets a personality distinct from the other wives.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-it's a little hard to follow on this front because names aren't often given out and when they are they don't sound like names, but I'm fairly confident that the wives and the Vuvalini all get names at some point, and they have multiple discussions about their journey and the Green Place, so I'm going with a pass.

Film: The Martian
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Jessica Chastain and Kate Mara)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: In the case of Chastain's Commander Melissa Lewis, she's his boss and in the case of Kate Mara's Beth, she's a fellow crew mate on his ship.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While both women are involved in Mark's rescue, in the case of Chastain in particular she plays a pretty integral role as she has to suspend and risk her life in order to save Mark from Mars.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, with Chastain this isn't really well-established.  We see her having interactions with other characters, and her job is clearly important to her, but Mark Watney is her focus for almost the entire film and she doesn't really get a side story.  Mara, on the other hand, gets a romantic interest (and it's Sebastian Stan, no less), and so I'd say yes for her getting a life outside of Mark since she has relationships established outside of his world.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-I had to look this one up as I couldn't remember an instance of this happening, but it does appear that Chastain and Mara discuss decompressing the ship, so this is pass.

Film: The Revenant
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: None-this is the only film (The Big Short is a question mark) where we can unequivocally state that there are no women in the top billed stars.  Grace Dove is the top billed actress for the movie as far as I can tell even though she doesn't have a line, though Melaw Nakehk'o gets a character with a line and a name, it's worth noting.  For the purposes of this exercise we'll stick with the higher-billed Dove as that's who the film spends more time upon.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Dead wife
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While she is in some ways a driving force in the film, that role more accurately falls upon her son, in which case absolutely none.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: Literally none-she's dead the entire movie, and as a result only exists in his own flashbacks and premonitions, so this isn't really an option for her.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Not even close.  Nakehk'o has the only named female character, and she gets one line that is used toward a man.

Film: Room
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Brie Larson and Joan Allen)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: For the third time this year, we have a film where a female character (in this case Larson's Joy) is the main character.  Joan Allen plays her mother.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Joy's a central part of the conclusion, and the final moments of the film actually return to her narrative, even if we always see the film through Jack's eyes (except in the last moment where Joy has to contemplate what Room was to her).  Allen's role is largely ancillary to the final conclusion of the film.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: This is a complicated question, especially since by limits of geography Joy doesn't have a role outside the main character but she frequently has to deal with troubles that don't involve Jack, and has to sort through her own mental issues after her breakdown during the interview.  Joan Allen's character also has a boyfriend and has dealt with relationships apart from Joy and Jack, so I'd also count her as a yes here.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes, the film has multiple scenes between Joy and Joan Allen's Nancy, including discussions of their relationship and the trauma of the kidnapping.

Film: Spotlight
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Rachel McAdams)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: I'm going to assume here that Keaton is considered the main character, even though he's not top-billed, in which case her relationship is employee of him.  This is more of an ensemble piece, though, so it's hard to say.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's definitely a part of the finale, waiting and answering calls and playing a crucial role in the writing of the Catholic priest/pedophile story.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: A lot has been made about McAdams' Oscar nomination and how the role she's playing feels pretty lackadaisical or that she's merely playing "the girl," but it's worth noting that she does have a life outside of the main characters, as her home life and relationship with her family/faith is also discussed in the picture, so I'd say this is a definitive "yes."
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: It's questionable.  McAdams' Sacha does have a conversation with her grandmother about her story, but her grandmother is never given a name other than "Nana" so I don't know that that counts under the rules of the Bechdel Test.  You can decide in the comments below.

And speaking of, there are the eight Best Pictures.  All-in-all, probably not where we'd need to go (it's still be nice to hit 50/50 and to have all passes for the Bechdel Test) but a decided improvement over last year.  Share your thoughts on the Best Picture race and favorite female character moments in them below!

Crimson Peak (2015)

Film: Crimson Peak (2015)
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston, Charlie Hunnam, Jim Beaver
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Guillermo del Toro are ones that I generally like more in theory than in practice.  My first encounter with one of his movies was a doozy, the brilliant and excellent Pan's Labyrinth, still one of my favorite movies from the mid-Aughts.  However, everything after that for some reason hasn't really clicked.  I didn't like Pacific Rim except for the Charlie Hunnam-exploitation, and the Hellboy movies left me a bit cold and uninspired.  His films are visual feats, especially in the ways that he crushes on his favorite color of red, but the substance is almost always lacking and the story is thin.  The movies rely upon rather predictable plots, which shows in this handsomely-executed and occasionally amusingly-acted piece that still is utterly predictable and lacks some of the scares you'd hope for from a horror movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), a young woman of a considerable fortune in the turn of the 20th Century who wishes to become the next Mary Shelley, writing stories about ghosts when publishers demand she consider romance instead.  She is pursued initially by a handsome doctor Alan McMichael (Hunnam), but instead falls for the charming but enigmatic Sir Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston), who woos her away after her father's untimely death to be his wife, living alongside his harsh and domineering sister Lucille (Chastain).  As the film progresses, Edith becomes sick and is haunted by the spirits of women who died violent deaths in the house, all the while realizing that her husband and his sister are involved in an incestuous relationship and are slowly poisoning her.

The film's predictability is really one of its major downfalls.  The thing is that in an era where we are trained to expect a twist (M. Night Shyamalan has left his mark in that regard), the film's straight-forwardness is in some ways refreshing.  We don't need to have a random dead main character to make this film stand out.  However, the film feels almost like it drags as a result of the lack of suspense.  The initial idea about Thomas and Lucille (that they're an incestuous brother-and-sister pair of fortune-seekers) is actually what happens, which causes the film to be kind of dull.  Horror movies rely upon surprises and the occasional shock death to keep their films moving, but Crimson Peak has no surprises-what you see is what you get, and as a result we never get the sense that Edith is in any real danger.  The film's ending results in her running away with Alan and ending up fleeing the mansion, while a dead Lucille becomes the new ghostly lady-of-the-house.  This is exactly what you'd have expected upon the first trailer, and the film doesn't have enough oomph to really sell such a predictable premise.

This is a problem not of anyone really involved, but because the film feels more like a series of portions rather than a cohesive vision.  The actors are all good, particularly Chastain as the creepy Agnes Moorehead-style sister, and the set decoration/costumes are divine to behold.  The effects are appropriately gory (someone's been watching The Knick), and the eyes get a series of truly great images, particularly the house with the roof that won't mend.  However, nothing seems to fit together.  Each scene feels more like a vignette rather than something that makes sense with the previous moment.  We never get a reason, for example why everyone seems to marvel at Edith, who has man flaunting after her despite her bookish disposition and nose-turned-up attitude.  We also don't get why Edith didn't scoop up Alan right away considering her need for her father's favor and the fact that Alan is a sweet, nice guy who also happens to be a brick house.  The entire story, in fact, surrounding Thomas and his allure evades me.  Hiddleston is appropriately attractive and we do get to see some male nudity as he constantly promised on Graham Norton, but his character is kind of a wimp and it's hard to see what his appeal to Lucille is, considering she's the sharper and stronger player in the relationship.  With a lack of suspense in the film, these loopholes start to make more sense and the movie, which feels plucked from a mystery novel of the time, can't quite modernize the tale enough to translate well to the cinema.

That being said, I'm going with three stars here because it's still interesting even if it's not particularly great.  It's the sort of film that if it looks appealing, you won't leave without having enjoyed what you saw, and if you aren't interested, there's nothing to surprise.  This isn't Pan's Labyrinth, a film that would convert new del Toro patrons, but it's not a movie that will alienate the current fanbase.  Like Quentin Tarantino in a lot of ways, del Toro seems to be stuck in his own shadow and hype, but he's still good enough to not make totally narcissistic work (quite yet).

Those were my thoughts on Crimson Peak, what are yours?  Did anyone love the film or hate it (it evaded a meh from me except for some acting and visuals)?  What do you think are its Oscar chances?  And what do you want to see next from Guillermo del Toro?

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

All right, it is bright and early this morning (or at least it is at the moment-it always takes me forever to get the link posts written, so who knows what time it will be when this finishes).  Either way, let's get to it!

On Entertainment...

-Mark Harris has a wonderful piece dissecting the Tony Awards, and their weird sort of decay in recent decades.  Much of it could also be said for the Oscars, who are constantly trying to accommodate younger audiences when, like the Olympics, they should really just try to steep us in history and make us feel like we're watching something iconic, rather than something transient (Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber are not going to make you fall harder for an awards show).  The show should return to its awards-giving roots, and celebrate moments like Kelli O'Hara's worm and maybe some of the plays on Broadway (like those starring major movie star Bradley Cooper) rather than Finding Neverland for the second year in a row (despite it getting no nominations in the meantime-I don't care how many tickets to the ceremony Harvey Weinstein bought!).

-Nathaniel over at the Film Experience had a new entry in my favorite series on the internet, the Supporting Actress Smackdown, which covered 1979.  So head on over if you want a solid discussion surrounding Mariel Hemingway, Jane Alexander, Candice Bergen, Barbara Barrie, and how they all fell to a young up-and-comer named Meryl Streep.

-The second season teaser for the genius (if you haven't watched yet, I don't know what I can do with you) HBO series The Leftovers is finally out, and like the original season is creepy with a lot of questions hanging over it.  I'm so excited that they officially said fall at the tail end of that clip, since that means The Leftovers will soon be on my DVR.  Again-see it!

On Politics...

-The big news this week was coming out of the halls of Congress, with the Democrats shockingly defying the president over the TPP trade compact that he has been trumpeting for weeks.  The Democrats went so far as to stop the TAA, a program they have historically supported for decades, potentially risking it's extinction in hopes of slowing down the fast-track bill.  This has been a bit hard for me to understand, both because these acronyms are WAY too similar for my brain, but also because I'm conflicted on how I would have voted (I always think with bills of this complicated nature it's worth looking at how you would decide, at least to improve your opinion of Congress when you realize you aren't sure).  In many ways, I think that we need to pass some sort of trade bill to not give up economic advantage in Asia, but some of the environmental aspects of the bill inserted by Paul Ryan (which seems to be a principle reason why Nancy Pelosi didn't end up supporting the agreement) are very troubling, with a lot more credence placed on business than on environmental law. So I probably would have supported TAA (it's too important, and almost assuredly dead after the Democrats' actions on Friday) but not TPP (which I would have supported if Ryan hadn't made it more palatable to conservative Republicans).  Either way, this was a terrible week politically for the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  Pelosi couldn't get a bill that even she could back, showing her weakened hand with such a small caucus (it's hard to imagine she couldn't have had both TAA and a palatable TPP if she had ten more seats), and the President showed that only appearing every two years at Democratic caucus meetings (seriously-that's just appalling and embarrassing for POTUS-these are members of his team) means you can't call in for loyalty when it counts.

-The New Yorker chronicles why Joe Biden should consider a run for the White House.  Listen, I love Joe Biden more than almost any other politician in America, and have supported him for decades, but I usually greet these sorts of articles with a solid eye roll.  Biden doesn't have wide enough respect across the country after a series of gaffes and he's considered too old at 74 next year to be running for POTUS.  Still, it's worth at least looking into for a man who has wanted to be president for decades and is one heartbeat away at the moment.  After all, some of the other handicaps (like his link to the Obama administration) are also held by Hillary Clinton, and it's worth noting that Clinton has had a pretty lousy rollout of her campaign (the way she has completely zoned out the press has gone from interesting to quirky to downright dangerous, and if this is the sort of campaign that she's going to run, it might be worth looking at other candidates because it's a 90's-style campaign that completely ignores the social media age we live in, and shows too much of a tin ear).  Biden could eviscerate her on this front (get him a little more finesse and he could run the entire news and talk show circuit through the ringer), and based on polls that show Bernie Sanders is doing better than expected, one would imagine that Joe Biden could actually pick up that mantle as both a left-leaning champion AND a viable contender.

-John Sutter has been doing a fascinating study about the 2-degree number and what an enormous impact it will have on the environment.  This isn't what I'd call a feel-good number, but it's one that will make you want to rethink your carbon footprint, and it's full of some information even I hadn't heard of before, so take a look.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-I may have hated the movie, but it's worth noting that this is the best scene of the movie.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-The funniest should-be-viral-but-isn't-quite-yet video of the week was surely the Jessica Chastain musical, which makes fun of the visual similarities between Jessica Chastain and Bryce Dallas Howard which was acknowledged by Chastain on Twitter and has now become a "thing."  Also, can we all just acknowledge that Howard is totally killing on the press tour for Jurassic World?  I think she's aware her career has gone off the skids a bit and she needs this to reverberate, so she's not only commenting on this video, but also crying on cue on Conan in a GREAT clip (it was the runner-up this week).

Just One More...

-An absolute must-read this week is Fareed Zakaria's fascinating look at the Millennial generation, both the good and the bad.  It's a thoughtful, interesting, and not knee-jerk article about the so-called "Me, Me, Me" generation, which is hard to find so I encourage you to check it out.  I love the renewed focus on volunteerism amongst Millennials (PS-that's on my goal list to have a consistent volunteering organization that I support by end of year, so if you know any good ones, let me know), but also a discussion of their political apathy that doesn't break into condescension. 

A Most Violent Year (2014)

Film: A Most Violent Year (2014)
Stars: Oscar Isaac, Jessica  the , David Oyelowo, Alessandro Nivola, Albert Brooks
Director: JC Chandor
Oscar History: Despite numerous nods for Jessica Chastain across the board (including at the Globes), the film came up empty-handed with AMPAS.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Sometimes you go into a film not 100% sure where it's going to head and some films you go into it knowing exactly where it's going to lead.  These make up the vast majority of movies for me.  There is a third category, however, those that pull-the-rug-out and don't seem entirely what you expected, which was the case with JC Chandor's follow-up to All is Lost (which I hated) and Margin Call (which I loved).  It was a film that has all of the aura of something out of the 1980's or 90's, when mafia movies were still all-the-rage and frequently theaters saw gritty crime dramas, but in many ways recalls the low octane movies of the 1970's, all feeling and sense, not necessarily driving home even its biggest moments in an obvious way.  It was a nice change of pace, even if it wasn't the film I was anticipating when I entered the theater.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film takes place in the 1980's, where Abel Morales (Isaac) is the proprietor of a heating oil company, trying to expand his business by buying a factory on the East River while also attempting to hold off hijackings of his trucks.  Abel is the sort of man who resembles Michael Corleone more than Scarface-a man who is reluctant to take his operation into illegal waters, but is clearly destined to hit them if he wants to expand.  Abel gets himself involved in a tricky dealing where, thanks to a hijacking where his driver shoots back, he loses his money from the bank and has to try to find money in order to secure his factory (which he's put everything into), all the while dealing with the mob and a District Attorney (Oyelowo) who is certain he's been illegally avoiding taxes and embezzling.

The film is a nice return-to-form for Chandor, who came right out the gate with the multi-layered work of Margin Call, a film with myriad plotlines and characters being juggled, where traditional movie star structure didn't give you an obvious answer as to whom would be crushed and whom would survive.  I know most people liked All is Lost (I was in the minority there), but I feel like Chandor's strength lies in these delicately-balanced, finally plotted films, not in movies that lack character interaction and dialogue.  Most of this film is just that-there's only a pair of action set-pieces from my recollection, and both of them are weirdly character-building.  The film instead continues with strong monologue work from all-involved and a wonderfully-felt series of conversations, which slowly teach us about each character's intentions.  There are, in fact, rarely scenes with multiple characters-almost every moment is a duet, rather than a group scene or an act with many characters coming in-and-out.

This results in two amazing performances from the leads. Oscar Isaac, who has basically become one of my new obsessions in the past two years (between this and Inside Llewyn Davis) does something I didn't expect (like much of this movie): he gives us a new take on the "legitimate businessman," principally because that's what he is.  While others around him are in fact bringing down his operation's ethics, he's striving simply to live the American Dream.  There's a terrific soliloquy about halfway through the movie where he chastises a new employee for snickering at his earnestness, but he sells it in such a way that you almost believe him, and you realize that this is someone that is trying to work within the rules first, not work within them only.  It's not often that you see someone stumble and fall in the central role of a film through poor social interactions or through giving too much credit to those around him.  As a result, Isaac gives a performance that's mesmerizing, but doesn't follow traditional story beats.

The same can be said for Chastain, who is marvelous as his wife Anna.  Chastain knows how to use her newfound moxie as a star here, selling the big delivery and fight scenes with ownership of the camera-she knows what the audience is focused upon, and as a result we see someone who owns her giant moments (particularly that scene where she tells off Oyelowo's district attorney for not being "respectful," which would have been a quotable classic if more people had seen this movie).  She's also great in the quieter scenes, knowing that this is a character who works very hard to project a veneer, so hard that her few moments of truth even feel a bit rehearsed.  She, like Isaac's Abel, knows what it takes to win and is willing to do what it takes to ensure victory.

This is really one of the cruelest and most central arguments of A Most Violent Year: the have and have-not's.  The film's tragic figure is Julian, the young man who tries to defend himself when his truck is hijacked, and as a result marks himself for future failure.  He is surrounded by people like Abel, Anna, and David Oyelowo's District Attorney, the have's in this adventure whom life continually deals a strong hand, and the ending, unlike so many, doesn't result in a comeuppance for the characters who have been moving all of the chess pieces to their advantage, but instead with Julian dead at his own hand, realizing that no amount of effort can perhaps replace luck and ruthlessness, which is what is on the side of Abel and Anna.  It's a fascinating ending, shot wonderfully by Bradford Young.

All-in-all, it's sad but not puzzling why such a film, so wonderfully introverted, was such a Box Office disaster.  The movie is marketed as something we would have seen in the 90's with Robert de Niro, but it's really a tricky, realistic story about dreams and what we will push toward and sacrifice to make them a reality (that and its release structure was poison when it so clearly could have gone wide without issue).  The movie occasionally has side stories that don't quite sell (I liked Albert Brooks in this movie even if I didn't always get him, and occasionally the business deals turn a bit wonky), but those are minor quibbles for what is the best crime drama I've seen in years.  The fact that the Academy couldn't see that and give Isaac, Chastain, and Chandor's script a nomination is unfathomable.

Those are my thoughts on this criminally under-seen movie from 2014-what are yours?  Do you agree that this wasn't entirely what you expected when you started watching?  Do you also feel Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain should have been nominated?  And which JC Chandor film do you enjoy the best?  Share your thoughts in the comments!