No Globe? No SAG? No Problem!

This morning we saw the SAG nominations, and with the Globes held this weekend, that means we get to write one of my favorite recurring annual articles on the blog-our annual look at the few performers whose dreams of Oscar glory have seemingly been dashed by not getting in with either of these high-profile precursors...who still could be in for a wonderful night in a few weeks at the Dolby Theater.  Every year since 2006, at least one actor has gotten a nomination for an Oscar without being cited by either the Globes or the SAG Awards, with a much larger number in the past two years:

2022: Brian Tyree Henry, Andrea Riseborough, Judd Hirsch, & Paul Mescal

2021: Penelope Cruz, Jesse Plemons, JK Simmons, Judi Dench, & Jessie Buckley

2020: Paul Raci & LaKeith Stanfield

2019: Florence Pugh

2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio

2017: Lesley Manville

2016: Michael Shannon

2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy, & Mark Ruffalo

2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern

2013: Jonah Hill

As a general rule, the best way to get another nomination is to get in as a result of your film having heat for either Best Picture or another acting race.  Last year, we saw this with someone like Judd Hirsch, who was starring in a film that was on-track for Best Picture & Actress, and then carried him along with the show.  Last year saw a disproportionately large number of people (Andrea Riseborough, Paul Mescal, & Brian Tyree Henry) who were their films only Oscar nod, which does happen, but this is generally hard to pull off, especially in the ten-wide Best Picture era.  Generally, the new name is someone from a Best Picture nominee that Oscar liked a little bit more than the rest of the season.

I say each year that I'm worried this trend won't continue, but this year I'm especially nervous because of the expansion of the Golden Globes.  This is the first year that the Globes had six nominees for each of the acting races, rather than five.  You can best see how this will hurt this stat by looking at Best Actor in a Drama.   This featured three Oscar frontrunners (Cillian Murphy, Bradley Cooper, & Leonardo DiCaprio) along with three "on the bubble" nominees (Colman Domingo, Andrew Scott, & Barry Keoghan).  In a normal year, one of those "on the bubble" nominees wouldn't have gotten mentioned, and if it had been Scott/Keoghan, would've been in my Top 5 here given the heat off of those films peaking at the right time (Domingo got a Globe nod).  This year, none of them are in the Top 10, and so I had to scrounge a little bit to get a plausible Top 10.  Still, a 14-year streak is going to be tough to beat-one of these names (#1 being the most likely) probably gets on Oscar's radar in two weeks.

Honorable Mention: I'm just going to list a few names that need to be mentioned.  I am still catching up on a few contenders (hence why own personal Top 10 lists haven't been revealed yet), so a couple of performances that I haven't seen include Erika Alexander (American Fiction), Christian Friedel (The Zone of Interest), Aunjanue Ellis (Origin), Jamie Bell (All of Us Strangers), & Juliette Binoche (The Taste of Things).  These all have their champions (and Binoche & Ellis are former nominees, which helps), but without seeing them I don't know if they make sense or even how substantial their roles are...so I'm just naming them for posterity.  Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer), Jesse Plemons (Killers of the Flower Moon), John Magaro (Past Lives), & Taraji P. Henson (The Color Purple) have large supporting parts in Best Picture contenders, but they've been ignored all season, and save for Magaro, they're all former nominees so if they were going to get in...why not get mentioned by SAG or the Globes?  Lastly, I do wonder if AMPAS will like Ferrari more than most, and Penelope Cruz's surprise SAG inclusion means that Adam Driver (a two-time nominee) deserves a mention in this list even if this is probably a miss for him.

10. Rachel McAdams (Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.)

For Her: McAdams has received some of the best reviews of her career for this Judy Blume adaptation, and there's a lot of passion surrounding her performance, despite it coming out in April.  She even won a surprise inclusion from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.  Sometimes underestimated when it comes to what screeners get the "Play" button pressed is whether you can watch a movie with your kids-Margaret is far more "let's all sit in front of the couch" friendly than May December or Saltburn.  She's also a former Oscar nominee-AMPAS has liked her before.

Against Her: The film has no shot in any other categories and it's a coming-of-age movie about a girl getting her period that was released almost a year ago.  No matter how good McAdams may be, that was always going to be hard to get past, especially without some help from something like SAG which is more the audience for this style of film.

9. Paul Mescal (All of Us Strangers)

For Him: I mean, he did it last year.  Mescal was able to take a small, family drama last year and ride it to the Oscars, what's to stop him this year?  All of Us Strangers is not necessarily in the Best Picture running, but it does have the kind of heat & interest that would make it a surprise inclusion in the 9th or 10th spot if heat for something that feels more like a "required" nominee (like Maestro) that no one really loves doesn't get in.  Additionally, everyone who sees the movie loves Andrew Scott, which makes him a stealth contender for the competitive fifth Best Actor slot.

Against Him: I haven't seen the movie, but literally any internal competition from Jamie Bell is going to cost him this, as it's already a small film...will Bell split his support?  Additionally, this is a film that Oscar voters aren't required to see-will they get to it, or is it just a move they're still saying "I've heard that's good" about come nominations time.

8. Sandra Huller (The Zone of Interest)

For Her: She's having a helluva a year.  Huller didn't get in with SAG, but she managed a Globe nomination for her work in Anatomy of a Fall, which I think will score her her first Oscar nomination in Best Actress.  Weirdly, she's also an option in supporting for Zone of Interest, which like All of Us Strangers is in the hunt for 9th or 10th in the Best Picture field.  Huller's supposedly good, and a significant part here.  Could she get double the love?

Against Her: Unlike a lot of past double nominees (like Scarlett Johansson or Al Pacino) she's not super famous headed into the night, and usually you come armed with all of the precursors if you're going to be cited twice.  It's possible, but I'm assuming on her first go-around AMPAS will think Best Actress is enough.

7. Zac Efron (The Iron Claw)

For Him: Efron checks two of the Academy's favorite boxes.  One, he's a matinee idol transforming himself physically for a role, and two, he's in the middle of something of a comeback, giving his most lauded performance to date after years as a teen idol.  A family drama and a biopic, this is in Oscar's wheelhouse (Mickey Rourke got nominated for a similar film a few years back), and it has a lot of fans.

Against Him: Efron is the sort of contender that the Globes normally would've gone for (not sure if that's because we're in a post-HFPA world or not, but a celebrity like him normally would've been able to sneak in over Andrew Scott).  Will enough people see it...and will enough respond given Efron's otherwise shallow acting resumé (unlike Rourke, Efron didn't spend a decade giving critically-acclaimed, edgy performances before Oscar noticed).

6. Ben Affleck (Air)

For Him: Affleck is a strange beast in Hollywood-someone well-loved by the Academy behind-the scenes (he has Oscars for writing and producing, and directed a Best Picture winner), but who has never been nominated for an Oscar for acting despite matinee idol good looks and appearing in many of his movies.  His latest directorial effort, Air, is a film I think is going to get into Best Picture (I haven't written my final nominations yet, but it'll be on there as my surprise guess unless something bizarre happens with the PGA/DGA/BAFTA citations), and since no film has only gotten a Best Picture nomination since 1943, if it gets in one place, it'll probably get in another.

Against Him: I think that most agree that Affleck, unlike his buddy Matt Damon, is better behind-the-scenes than in front of the camera, and while this is a showy part, there's a more traditional role for the Academy to cite in Air if they feel so inclined.  Also, Best Supporting Actor is already bursting at the seams without adding someone like Affleck into the conversation.

5. Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers)

For Her: Foy is one of the most recognized actresses on television, she's British (the Academy loves British actresses), and she works in a lot of prestige films that have gotten on Oscar's radar (First Man, Women Talking).  Her work in All of Us Strangers as the main character's mother isn't work I've seen yet, but from what I've heard it's strong, scene-stealing stuff, and if the film is peaking at the right time (which it is), like Paul Mescal, I could see her being in the running.

Against Her: At this point, Foy has been turned down by the Academy twice.  Similar to Emily Blunt (who after two decades is finally going to get an Oscar nomination in two weeks for Oppenheimer after basically begging the Academy every year for it), it's possible she's just not their cup of tea?  If she can't get in for a Best Picture nominee, why this?

4. Viola Davis (Air)

For Her: As I mentioned above, there's a more traditional option in Air if AMPAS wants to nominate it for an acting trophy than Ben Affleck, and that's Oscar-winning actress Viola Davis.  Davis gets a showy supporting part as Michael Jordan's mother, plays well off of Matt Damon (whom, it is worth noting, did get a Golden Globe nomination for this film), and we know Oscar loves her.  They also might feel they owe her after she missed last year for an expected nomination for The Woman King.

Against Her: She still has a trophy, so it's not like ignoring her for The Woman King was a major crime.  More importantly, it's possible I'm overestimating Air's strength.  It came out last spring, and hasn't shown up on a lot of year-end lists.  Maybe it's just one of those movies people liked, but doesn't score with Oscar, in which case Davis is a non-entity.

3. Matt Damon (Oppenheimer)

For Him: Our top three contenders I'm going all in on movies that all of the Academy's acting branch will have seen by the time the nominations start, but feature three performers with prominent roles in those films that haven't gotten mention yet.  Damon's lack of a nomination has perplexed me all season.  In a sea of options, he and Downey are the only two supporting actors who are clearly prominent enough in terms of screen-time to stand out from the crowd.  Given his personal popularity (as well as love for Oppenheimer), why isn't he showing up?

Against Him: Damon's problem is twofold.  One, his internal competition, particularly from Robert Downey, Jr. who is going to win this category with Oscar, means that spreading-the-wealth feels like the correct choice (Oppenheimer isn't hurting for love).  Second, the supporting actor race is stacked this year, the strongest contenders and the most quality options of any of the four acting races.  This would feel like a "weak field" filler nomination, not needed for 2023.

2. Dominic Sessa (The Holdovers)

For Him: The Holdovers is an acting trio, one that features two people who are surefire nominees (and potential winners): Da'Vine Joy Randolph & Paul Giamatti.  Their counterpart Dominic Sessa, though, has gotten plenty of good notices for his screen debut in The Holdovers.  It's a lead performance that is being passed off as supporting (that always helps), and if you're a fan of the movie, you might just want to put down one actor for each category.

Against Him: He's so young.  This is his first film, and in a category where they tend to nominate longtime veterans (like Willem Dafoe or Mark Ruffalo, both also on the edge for this category), they might want to make him pay his dues.  Plus, given The Holdovers didn't get into Best SAG Cast (usually a prerequisite for a Best Picture nomination), this might be a movie that voters more like than love.

1. America Ferrera (Barbie)

For Her: Everyone loves Barbie.  Even if you aren't a fan of the movie itself, in an industry town that had a lower-than-expected box office last yeaer, everyone knows that Barbie is a movie they should be grateful for.  Ferrera is a longtime character actress who weirdly (despite the large female cast) will be the only Supporting Actress option from the film.  People love her monologue scene in the picture, and she's been pushing the movie hard.  These are all things that usually add up to a surprise inclusion.

Against Her: Unless Jodie Foster or Danielle Brooks fall (both are on shaky, but likely, ground), this is really a fifth slot play against Viola Davis (Air), Julianne Moore (May December), Penelope Cruz (Ferrari), and Rosamund Pike (Saltburn).  None of those are Best Picture nominee locks like Barbie is, but unlike Ferrera, they're all former Oscar nominees/winners who come armed with precursors (save Davis).  Still...I think I'll probably guess Ferrera because her math feels really good in this scenario.

OVP: The Greatest Showman (2017)

Film: The Greatest Showman (2017)
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Michelle Williams, Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Keala Settle
Director: Michael Gracey
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"This is Me")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I watched and defended Glee longer than I should have.  I realize that in hindsight, but at the time it was a great salvation for me.  I was lonely in a city with very few friends and no family, and Glee was a weekly reminder that "it was all going to be okay" a message I wasn't receiving from anyone I saw on a day-to-day basis.  As a result, when the show went completely off-the-rails (surely by the time they all went to college), I felt a civic duty to stand behind it, continuing to watch it, and not just because I really wanted Sam and Blaine to get together.

(Spoilers Ahead) What does Glee have to do with anything here?  It's because The Greatest Showman is almost completely copying what Glee did in those final few seasons of the series.  The movie is centered around PT Barnum (Jackman), the famed showman who did have a fascinating life, well worth a movie or four to investigate, but this is not really about The Greatest Showman.  This is instead about shoving a message down our throats while surrounding that message with a series of musical numbers...again, much like Glee.

The movie itself could be summed up in about four sentences.  Barnum is born from nothing, but ends up marrying a rich girl "out of his league" named Charity (Williams).  He decides, after tricking a bank into giving him money, to open a museum of curiosities that eventually turns into what we now call the circus.  Along the way he recruits a bearded lady (Settle), a beautiful trapeze artist (Zendaya), and a business partner in the form of Philip Carlyle (Efron), who falls for the trapeze artist.  Still wanting to fit in with the society set he can't ever reach thanks to class snobbery, he sponsors an opera singer named Jenny Lind (Ferguson), but in the process alienates his new "freak" friends, and in the end we find out that they are all the family that he needs.

If that sounds like a bad episode of Glee, you officially get where I was going with this opening.  The movie can occasionally cling to some solid music (Pasek & Paul are no slouches), but man is this a bad movie if you discount the music.  The acting is cheesy and under-baked (and not just in the way you'd expect from an old-timey musical)...no one is doing these characters justice, not even the usually reliable Williams and Ferguson.  Zendaya is a great dancer and a fun performer, but she needs to work on her acting chops.  At least she can claim she's relatively new to the screen, something neither Jackman nor Efron are able to do.  Jackman's singing voice I've never been a fan of, but here his acting is more troubling, as he plays Barnum too earnestly, even when he's meant to be a bit more conniving in order to make the plot believable, and both give off the aura of the guys who are too manly to celebrate the gaudiness of the movie they're in.  In a film with a lot of performances, no one is even hitting a ground rule double.

The script itself is the worst part, though.  Listen, I know that anti-bullying messages are important, and I was fine getting it when I saw Ferdinand the next day (review coming in the next week) since that's a movie for children, but is it bad that I point out that this message is insanely played out at this point?  I get when the actual president is a tyrant and bully, it makes sense that we need this reminder frequently, but this feels like a cookie cutter script from an after-school special, and it's in a film that is almost completely geared toward adults.  It does not deal with shades of grey well, which is a bummer as Barnum was an important but very complicated man, and you'll leave wondering why arguably the most saccharine and groan-inducing song in the film is probably going to be the Oscar-nominated one ("Never Enough" is far, far better than "This is Me," not to mention "Rewrite the Stars" which would have the added benefit of being a show-stopping duet).  All-in-all, this is a movie that, the best thing you can say about it is to just buy the soundtrack.  The worst you can say is that in the post-Moulin Rouge cinematic musical boom, this is about as good as the big-screen version of Rent.

Oscar Trivia: Stars Without an Oscar-Nominated Film

There are a lot of perks with being a movie star.  Global fame, money, free clothes, international platforms, legions of fans, people fawning over you, and you’re probably already gorgeous so you had that going for you to begin with.  However, one of the less-noted pieces of fame is that you generally have an Oscar-nominated film or two in your repertoire.  In fact, it’s extremely difficult to come up with a list of genuinely famous actors who have not been in an Oscar-nominated film (which is what I did below) and more importantly, it’s going to be a lot harder next year as many of the below actors are in major motion pictures that could be part of the Oscar conversation.

You may be thinking that this is a super easy game to play, but it’s not, as it isn’t just Meryl Streep and George Clooney movies that get nominated for the Oscars.  Adam Sandler, for example, starred in Click which was nominated for Best Makeup.  Miley Cyrus was the voice of a little girl in the Oscar-nominated Bolt.  Mike Myers had a bit part in Inglourious Basterds.  Kevin James had a role in Monster House.  By-and-large, if you’re famous enough to open a movie, you’re probably famous enough to have been in an Oscar-nominated film.  However, the ten below actors have never been (through my checking on IMDB) in an Oscar-nominated film and regularly star in motion pictures.  Let’s jump in and see when they got the closest/and if they have a shot this year!

Jessica Alba

Lifetime Gross: $931 million

Biggest Hit: Fantastic Four ($154 million)

Highest-Rated (all highest-rated according to Rotten Tomatoes Freshness Rating): Stretch

Best Shot She Had: I would assume it would be Sin City, which got nominated by the Sound Editors branch for a Golden Reel Award and received a number of critical awards from the St. Louis, Washington DC, and San Diego critics groups.

Does She Have a Shot This Year?: Doubtful-if the first Sin City film couldn’t make it, I have little confidence that its sequel will.

Jennifer Aniston

Lifetime Gross: $1.41 billion

Biggest Hit: Bruce Almighty ($242 million)

Highest-Rated: The Iron Giant

Best Shot She Had: Considering that it was in the years before the Animated Feature category, the reality is that the critically-celebrated The Iron Giant was never going to be a genuine player.  However, none of Aniston’s other films came close to being nominated, so I’m going to go with Iron Giant in perhaps a writing category (had the Animated Feature category existed at the time, Aniston wouldn't be on this list).

Does She Have a Shot This Year?: As we discussed earlier this month, absolutely; Aniston is, in my opinion, one of the current frontrunners for Best Actress and could score not only a nomination, but a nomination for herself with Cake.

Zac Efron

Lifetime Gross: $813 million

Biggest Hit: Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax ($214 million)

Highest-Rated: Hairspray

Best Shot He Had: If there’s a genuinely surprising person on this list, it would be Efron, who has been in some films with major shots at the Oscars.  Hairspray and The Paperboy both got Golden Globe nominations for acting, and Me and Orson Welles scored an acting nod at the BAFTA’s.  All-in-all, I think that he’s probably been the closest of any of these ten actors.

Does He Have a Shot This Year?: Not really-Neighbors was a big hit, but it’s not Oscar BAIT in the slightest.

Tina Fey

Lifetime Gross: $530 million

Biggest Hit: Megamind ($148 million)

Highest-Rated: Elaine Stritch: Shoot Me

Best Shot She Had: Megamind was a contender in a particularly competitive year for Animated Feature, but that Box Office might have helped it had the year gone five-wide.  I would assume, though, that Mean Girls could have been a contender in Best Screenplay if it had been the phenomenon upon release that it is now, so I’ll go with that.

Does She Have a Shot This Year?: Yes, kind of.  While I don’t 100% know if the Elaine Stritch documentary should count, she definitely was a key player in Muppets Most Wanted, which could end up in the Best Original Song category, as that franchise frequently scores music nods.  A little more Box Office would certainly have helped her odds, though.

Katherine Heigl

Lifetime Gross: $745 million

Biggest Hit: Knocked Up ($148 million)

Highest-Rated: King of the Hill (not the hit FOX animated series, but instead an early 1990’s Steven Soderbergh drama)

Best Shot She Had: I would assume that at some point Judd Apatow was in contention for a writing award considering the critical acclaim and box office he typically gets.  Knocked Up is the most likely contender of his films to have gotten some votes in that column.

Does She Have a Shot This Year?: No-Heigl is far more concerned about the ratings of State of Affairs, her highly-anticipated return to television than she is getting an Oscar-nominated film on her résumé this year.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Lifetime Gross: $1.639 billion

Biggest Hit: Fast and Furious 6 ($239 million)

Highest-Rated: Racing Dreams

Best Shot He Had: He's been in a couple of major visual effects feasts, principally The Mummy Returns, which would have been his best shot at a nominated film.

Does He Have a Shot This Year?: No-neither of the two Hercules movies is a film many people will remember a week after they saw it, much less months later for a high honor.

Lindsay Lohan

Lifetime Gross: $492 million

Biggest Hit: Freaky Friday ($110 million)

Highest-Rated: Teenage Paparazzo

Best Shot She Had: Bobby at one point was supposed to be an awards contender, but only got cited by the SAG Awards, and working with Robert Altman usually results in a citation for acting or directing, but A Prairie Home Companion couldn't quite cut it in that regard.

Does She Have a Shot This Year?: No-Lohan doesn't even have a film out this year, I believe, and is far more focused on-well, being a tabloid fixture?  Everything she touches lately turns to lead (not even Oprah could save her), so I am assuming this isn't going to happen, and she won't be considered a movie star in the same way the other nine are in a few years.

Kellan Lutz

Lifetime Gross: $1.48 billion

Biggest Hit: The Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($300 million)

Highest-Rated: Love is All You Need

Best Shot He Had: You may question Kellan Lutz as a movie star, but he's headlining films now and has made more box office than most people on this list, so I'm going to stick with him for now.  Probably the only chance he had was during the Twilight series when it came to Best Original Song, as there were a number of hits from those films that could have been contenders if Oscar had been willing to look past the glittering vampires.

Does He Have a Shot This Year?: The Legend of Hercules doesn’t really seem Oscar-worthy even by the low standards of Best Makeup, so no.

Paul Rudd

Lifetime Gross: $1.143 billion

Biggest Hit: Monsters vs. Aliens ($198 million)

Highest-Rated: Casting By

Best Shot He Had: Probably either Clueless or The Perks of Being a Wallflower, both critically-acclaimed, particularly for their screenplays, but probably left off of the list due to the youth-oriented aspects of the films.

Does He Have a Shot This Year?: No-his movie with Amy Poehler They Came Together barely made a blip on the radar screen (did you know it was released)?

 Channing Tatum

Lifetime Gross: $1.721 billion

Biggest Hit: The Lego Movie ($257 million)

Highest-Rated: Foxcatcher

Best Shot He Had: Honestly, maybe Magic Mike?  Matthew McConaughey easily could have scored a nomination for the film, though if we don’t count that, than perhaps Public Enemies (Art Direction) or GI Joe (Visual Effects).

Does He Have a Shot This Year?: He’ll be off of this list this year.  Tatum not only has the critically-acclaimed Foxcatcher making plays for writing, acting, and Best Picture, but he has two animated films that could factor into the Animated Feature race: The Lego Movie and The Book of Life.

There are the eight-what are your thoughts?  Who gets off this list first?  What major actors am I missing?  And which actor that I name-checked that does have a nominated film are you most surprised to see included?  Share in the comments!

Neighbors (2014)

Film: Neighbors (2014)
Stars: Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Dave Franco, Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Oscar History: Not a chance
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

All right, before I get into this movie, I want to write about a public service announcement for anyone that is late to a movie theater.  I have written about this before, but it is NEVER okay to ask someone to move at a movie theater if you are coming in late.  This also goes for a plane or a train or pretty much every single instance in real-life.  I will say that this didn't happen to me (it happened to the people sitting behind me), but it has happened to me, and if you want to sit together at a movie theater, get there early and find four seats together.  It's very simple.  Don't make the people who are sitting in their spots (in the cushy best spot in the theater where the metal bar is there to put up your feet, my favorite spot which I didn't get because I also was coming to the theater relatively late) get up and get worse seats because you came late.  It's unbelievably rude, particularly when the entire front section (the section no one really likes, but is still proper seating) is completely empty and you totally have the ability to sit together as a family.  Also, the eleven-year-old you brought with was too young to see Neighbors.

(Spoilers Ahead) Now, let's get into the movie, which was surprisingly, interestingly, quite entertaining.  Honestly-I didn't expect a movie that looked like this to be what this ended up being.  While not on the same level as Bridesmaids (that was in my personal Top 10 of that year) or 21 Jump Street (cannot wait for the sequel!), it has that sort of vibe-a film that knows what it's supposed to be and then either gives us the best version of that genre or at least gamely toys with us as an audience.

The film is about a couple named Mac and Kelly (Rogen and Byrne) with a new toddler, living their dream in the suburbs.  They have lost a bit of the spark in their lives, but are genuinely happy with each other, generally love each other, and they go in-and-out, a little bit bored with where they lives have gone.  They're basically in that moment in your early 30's where the party years have largely ended, with the rare throwback maybe once a year when your crazy party friend calls up, but overall you have brunches and fancy soaps in the bathroom and Pottery Barn (there's an hilarious scene late in the film where Rogen and Byrne confess they actually like the things they used to mock when they were younger).  Their life is torn asunder when a fraternity moves in next door to them, causing them to be awake at all hours and eventually a rivalry forms between the two when they call the cops on the fraternity and the ringleader of the fraternity Teddy (Efron) decides to start coming after them with pranks.

The rest of the film occasionally veers toward Rube Goldberg level pranks (you saw this in the trailer, but there's a scene where Teddy has put airbags all around Mac's office and home in the chairs and Mac is frequently sent flying as a result).  The pranks almost all work, and the film spins by; there's nothing particularly ground-breaking or fresh here, but what elevates a routine film into something highly watchable is a game cast, and you've got a strong one here.  Rogen, so used to being on the frat side of comedy, is the perfect casting choice for someone struggling between the two worlds and with the fear of getting old (not just aging, but that unknowable line where you have become "old").  Efron is even better as the occasionally sinister, sexually-charged Teddy.  I read a Richard Lawson article for Vanity Fair where he speculated that this performance was informed by Efron's drug use, which I found a bit inappropriate and wildly hypothetical without more proof, but I did agree with him that Efron as a villain is something I didn't know I wanted, but it totally works.  Rose Byrne wins MVP, however.  She gets saddled with the most traditionally thankless role of the three, the role without as many bells, and she finds layers in this woman (away from her home country, she's very reliant on Mac and her adorable baby Stella for definition, and relishes the escalating prank war) and also gets to eagerly play in the pranking war.

Much has been said about the film's high gay content, and while no character in the film is obviously gay (though there's a Grindr joke that any gay man will silently be snickering at that may well go over their straight theater friends' heads), there is definitely a homosexual vibe to the film that cannot be denied.  Efron is treated like an object of lustful worship, something that sexuality can disregard as we all just sort of stand back and drool.  The film takes his character through the ringer (pointing out the folly of his ways when he realizes the real world is not going to care if he made it "on the wall" of his frat's greatest achievements), but it's always in heat toward him.

One of the only larger complaints I had about the film is the age of the actors involved.  While I was able to discard this for Efron, who can still pull off college-age even if he's getting to the limit, Dave Franco is 28 bordering on 29-he's simply too old to be playing this character anymore (he's only three years younger than Rogen), and I feel like he needs to graduate to more mature roles, which may be a career killer for Franco who has never really exhibited the actorly sensibilities that his older brother did.  I also feel like Christopher Mintz-Plasse (whose appeal has always alluded me), despite being relatively young, looks too old for this part and also needs to graduate to non-college aged roles (which, again, may be a large problem for an actor who has shown no range to do anything other than McLovin).

That said, this is a really fun movie, and at 97 minutes, a brisk one.  I'm guessing most people have seen it by now-if so, what did you think?  Do you feel that Rose Byrne was the standout as well?  What are your thoughts about the shifting careers of Zac Efron and Seth Rogen?  Share in the comments!

The Paperboy (2012)

Film: The Paperboy (2012)
Stars: Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, David Oyelowo, Macy Gray
Director: Lee Daniels
Oscar History: No nominations (though it has to be believed that Nicole Kidman's Globe and SAG nominated performance was a near miss)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I don't use the phrase "hot mess" very often, but even I can acknowledge when I've seen one.  Urban dictionary defines a hot mess as "when one's thoughts or appearance are in a state of disarray but they maintain an undeniable attractiveness or beauty."  That pretty much sums up Lee Daniels's (who brought us the brilliant Precious, and has a pair of Oscar nominations to show for it) latest film, a tale from the backwoods of Florida about a pair of investigative journalists in the late 1960's trying to exonerate a man who may or may not be a cold-blooded killer.

(Spoilers ahead) The film is really two tales in one, usually a good sign but in this case a muddled disaster.  The first is a fairly straight-forward love story, about a young, directionless college dropout named Jack (Efron) who falls for the convict-crazy cougar next door (Kidman, in a performance that has to be seen to be believed), Ms. Charlotte Bless.  The second is the far seedier, Deliverance-infused story about how Jack and his older brother Ward (McConaughey) try to free Hillary van Wetter (Cusack), a convicted murderer from prison.  It's an interesting thought process, as the judicial system clearly screwed over Hillary by not giving him a fair trial, but there's still ample evidence that he did indeed commit the murder that he is charged with committing.  Attempting to string these stories together is Anita (Gray), the former maid of the two brothers, and the movie's narrator.

The film meanders and wanders and then decides to just shift hazily throughout as it tells these two stories.  It's hard to say which is the more compelling, though your focus the entire movie is on Kidman no matter what is happening onscreen, so much so that you miss complete plot points being seduced by the Oscar winner.  While cinephiles will know that Kidman is not one to be trifled with when she's getting into character (she is not afraid to be daring and bold to get to where her arch is headed), those expecting a Grace Kelly or even a Satine are going to be boldly shocked.  Charlotte Bless is an undeniably erotic mix of Mamie van Doren and Squeaky Fromme, a woman that hangs off of every word her "soulmate" Hillary says, and is convinced of his innocence, even when he clearly is only interested in consuming her physically.   Kidman spends the film pleasuring herself, urinating, and forcing her movie star beauty through the white trash ringer, and as a result, we get a guttural allure that is clearly excellent and unique, even if it's hard to fathom the reasons behind her character.  I do have to tip my hat to one of my favorite actresses, though, for continuing to take on such bold and daring work from directors with vision, even if those visions seem like the ramblings of a peyote high.

No one else in the film is remotely as successful as Kidman at resonating with the audience or the material, least of all the screenwriter.  The film's editing is poor, and you find yourself suddenly in and out of the truth, as if the film has been activating the already manic The Black Dahlia of a few years back, and decided that it wanted to make that film, but on a larger acid trip.  Suddenly McConaughey is tied and gagged on the floor of a hotel, with little mention as to why, or his writing partner is suddenly out-of-the-blue no longer British, and again, there seems to be no reason why.  The movie, especially in its latter hour, seems as if it was written in a pitch meeting, rather than in a fully-formed script.  By the time we reach the film's inevitable conclusion (an ending that makes sense, I suppose, with Cusack never confirmed as the killer of the Sheriff that he was imprisoned for, but instead sentenced to the chair for murdering Ward and Charlotte), you are left dazed, rather than questioning or resolved.

The filmmaker is equal opportunity about his exploitation of his stars' attractiveness.  While Kidman finds her Daisy Duke appeal, the filmmaker is also aware that Zac Efron has that movie star magnetism, and while Efron is not the actor that Kidman is, and therefore doesn't find the wild abandon at the center of his character, Daniels is talented enough to still mine from him a desirableness that assists the first half of his story.  Efron seems to be flirting with literally everything onscreen, constantly parading around in nothing but his underwear, and evocatively toying with the audience with a fluid sexuality.  The film oddly doesn't take advantage of the handsomeness of its other leading man, McConaughey (in a bizarre WTF performance that serves as the counterpoint to his superb craziness in Magic Mike), but both Efron and Kidman make for intoxicating, if baffling, beauties for us to stare at for two hours, making the movie a hot, but easily dismissed, mess.