Supporting Actor 2014

This race was decided long before their was even a race. It was always Simmons' Oscar and everyone else was just playing for consolation. It's a good group of actors and as per usual it offers up a good group of performances.

2014 Best Supporting Actor

J. K. Simmons - Whiplash

Holy shit! This category pumps out some really stellar winners, some that I'd consider some of the best ever or at least the top performances of the last 20 years or so. J. K. Simmons provides another name to put on that imaginary list because he knocks this performance out of the fucking park. It's a grand slam in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series while down three runs with 2 outs and 2 strikes. Like it blew me away with how good it truly is. Not many people know that Whiplash was actually a short before a full film and Simmons was in both of them. I think that only served to help him because he was able to hone his character and instead of only putting on screen the initial take on a character, he got another chance and really owned it. I think inhabiting a character for so long can only help a performance to come out better and Simmons really showed that here. He is spell binding, mesmerizing, captivating, intoxicating, whatever cliche adjectives you want to throw out - they all apply to his performance as a jazz teacher whose intensity with his students goes above and beyond. He's hardcore and that intensity isn't like a drill sergeant but more like a reigned in drill sergeant who explodes only when absolutely necessary before snapping back into the focused machine he is. Both Simmons the actor and his character just radiate such intense passion that literally makes your jaw drop. He's able to bring his character to such vivid life that you grow to fear him while he's on screen like you're the one sitting there drumming, it's simply amazing. This was by far the best performance of the year for me and deserved all the awards it received. There's no doubt that Simmons' performance will go down as one of the greatest of all time.

Robert Duvall - The Judge

Okay, so this is the obvious you're gonna die soon, most likely, so let's nominate you one last time for a mediocre performance in a movie that's mostly boring and derivative. And that really is the truth! Duvall was getting backed hard in the lead up to nominations but all the prognosticators had him as an outsider looking in or at the very least a 5th slot. I know when his name was read on announcement day I was a bit surprised, especially since it knocked out one of my favorites of the year in Riz Ahmed for Nightcrawler. About his performance, though - it's not bad or terrible or anything. It's what you'd expect from Duvall, elevating sub par material on the strength of his acting ability. He plays an old, crusty Judge who had an issue with alcohol who goes out for a drive and returns with a damaged car and later is indicted for a hit and run. His estranged son represents him and some family bonding occurs. Formulaic stuff that is stuffed into this bloated movie that runs 2 and a half hours long! Duvall along with Robert Downey Jr. make this movie worth a watch but they really are the only worthy parts to watch. Still, Duvall's performance hits a lot of familiar notes and his character is too rigid too allow for much personality. The Judge is a very moral, upright character that is unwilling to bend to common sense. He doesn't use his illness as a reason he couldn't remember his drive and does some other things that are just too convenient for plot. So while it is a decent Duvall performance, it's frustrating knowing we could have gotten something much better with a stronger story and a better character.

Ethan Hawke - Boyhood

Okay, so I've already talked about how the concept for this film was pretty impressive which by association means the commitment of 12 years by an actor to a single film/performance is also impressive. Ethan Hawke is no stranger to something similar to this with the Before films so it's natural that he fits right in. But is this an impressive performance? I wouldn't use impressive, more like competent or decent given what /who his character is. He plays the father to Mason and his sister and pops in and out of their life when convenient. It's a very supporting role and one that's mostly one note. Hawke's character constantly shows up to be the cool dad who is absent but comes into the picture with presents and fatherly advice. And he is always shown as being kinda cool and hip and more of a friend to the kids instead of the father. He gives advice in almost every scene which makes the character seem too on the nose about growing up and parenting, ya know? Like that's all he's around for is to have these moments with Mason but it all seems so artificial. Hawke is a good choice with his down to earth, cool but pretty nice guy mentality. His life is almost in contrast with Arquette's who is constantly fucking up yet this absent father eventually settles down and has another kid and gets married and becomes religious yet still remains cool while supporting Mason and doing the advice thing. I don't think the character is all that well thought through but Hawke manages to scrape out a decent performance with his charm and good guy qualities. Is it anywhere close to being a winner? Nah. But it is decent even if it's a little too thin.

Edward Norton - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Ah, Edward Norton is pretty great even if he is supposed to be a dick in real life. In this film, he's pretty enjoyable as the ringer, essentially, who is also a dick. One of the actors gets injured and Norton is brought in because he's a dedicated, veteran Broadway actor who somehow knows all the lines even though he was just brought in. He's that kind of Broadway actor. He's super method and needs to drink real gin in a scene, wants to really fuck Naomi Watts in another, and implores Keaton's character to go out and take a risk. It's a sort of stereotypical role in a film about breaking stereotypes so it's not out of place at all. He's very much like what his real life persona is said to be: a womanizing dick who gets so deep into character at times. I think Norton understands the parallel and I'd assume that's why he chose it, much like Keaton choosing to portray a washed up superhero. It's a tongue in cheek role and Norton excels at playing a character that's like Norton. That sounds disparaging but it's not! I quite enjoyed Norton here because he adds to the craziness that is Birdman and his character is a lot of fun to watch. He doesn't distract or detract from the story at all and what else can you really say? He's not the best option for the win but he's a pretty good nominee.

Mark Ruffalo - Foxcatcher

Mark Ruffalo has kinda become a go to pick for the Academy when it comes to filling out their nominations. Which isn't a bad thing at all, really, because he does provide some pretty good to great performances. I've got nothing against Ruffalo being nominated here because Foxcatcher is a great film and because his performance is very authentic. Ruffalo portrays Dave Schultz, an Olympic gold medal wrestling champion and coach. He is sort of the conduit for the audience in this film because he's the only sane character we encounter. He's like us observing the crazy antics of John du Pont and concerned for the well being of his brother, Mark. He takes everything in and tries to process it and get it fixed which ultimately ends tragically for him. But that's where Ruffalo succeeds in being that strong supporting character that's never too flashy. I also just love the way he acts in this role. His walk is unintentionally funny to me because it's the jaunty walk of a wrestler but it feels very lived in and authentic, as is everything else Ruffalo does in this film. It might not be a performance that would win but I'm all for strong supporting characters like these getting their due.
 
As I said above Simmons gave one of the best performances I've seen since starting this project and I think one of the best of the last 20 or so years, period. This was an easy choice for Oscar. What follows is a list of smaller supporting performances that don't exactly pop or wow but are still mostly solid. Norton comes in second because his is the most fun and it's a nice breath of fresh air over all the serious stuff I see. He's having fun with it and it definitely shows. Then would come Ruffalo for a stalwart performance - a typical Ruffalo job. It doesn't take over the film but if he weren't there, you'd notice it. Hawke would be my fourth only because he just plays the cool dad figure and doesn't do all that much besides offer up advice. Duval is the weak link but not a terrible one. Just knowing that there were better choices out there is what frustrates me about that one. Oh well!

Oscar Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
My Winner:  J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Edward Norton
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Robert Duvall

Supporting Actress 2014

Yes! Finally I'm catching up to the current Oscar year (until the 2015 Oscars get nominated in a few, short months) and I couldn't be any more happy! This is the freshest Oscar race in my mind, obviously, and I can still remember my thoughts as the race went on and all the controversy and hype. It will be good to finally get all of that stuff out of my brain and into this blog. I'm also kind of glad to return to some of these films and performances since some of them can get lost in the clamor to see them all before Oscar night. It will be great to fully digest them all. On to my least favorite group, though.

2014 Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette - Boyhood

This was the presumptive winner for the entirety of the Oscar race and made for a pretty boring Supporting Actress race. It doesn't help that I don't think Arquette was worthy of being the Oscar winner. There's just something about her performance that really irked me. Let's be real, she's a really shitty mother. She constantly moves her kids around under the auspices of giving them a better life but puts them in awful situations to begin with and uproots their lives without their input. She shacks up with an abusive alcoholic and seemingly does nothing until he explodes one day. She puts her career ahead of her kids and mostly leaves them to their own devices. She marries another drunk with an anger problem and then seems all too eager to get rid of the kids once they hit 18. And Arquette's acting in all of this is so amateurish. That's the appalling and surprising part to me. I read over and over about how revelatory and masterful it was and I was left wondering if we watched the same performance? I don't know what it is about her but it just kinda comes off like she was still learning to act which I know is not the case. Or maybe she just doesn't thrive under non-scripted acting which I think was how some of the film was done. Like I said, I don't know but something about her acting is off and it does not feel Oscar worthy at all to me. Her big scene at the end of the film where she bursts into tears at the realization that her kids are moving on just felt too cringe worthy and hokey to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about with my criticisms of Arquette. Just because it was over 12 years and she portrayed a single mother doesn't mean that automatically equals Oscar which is kinda what happened. Not my favorite for sure.

Laura Dern - Wild

I mean, I thought about making this review about two or three lines and that's it. This is a waste of a nomination. I remember watching the announcements and seeing that Dern was chosen and thinking why the fuck was she even up for a possible nomination? She does absolutely nothing in the film, brings absolutely nothing to the film, and absolutely deserved no nomination for this. She is barely in the film as the mother to Witherspoon's character and I guess shows off some quirkiness and then proceeds to get cancer and die. It really feels needless and pointless and she is such a minor presence that it blows my mind that she was even considered for an Oscar! I say minor presence due to length of time she is onscreen but she's the impetus for Witherspoon making the hike along with her other personal stuff. It still seems underdeveloped and an obvious emotional grab, meant to earn sympathy for Witherspoon's character and I guess partly explain her behavior. But the whole thing is so glossed over that it doesn't even matter much. From what I remember around that time was that her mother was heavily campaigning for her and she had some ads out to vote for her. If that is all it takes to get such a non-entity of a performance nominated then maybe I should quit watching and getting so into the races and ceremony. Literally if you took out Dern's scenes from the film, you either wouldn't notice or the film would seem better for them not being there. I'm just super disappointed that this would get a nod while anyone else wouldn't. I'm not even gonna critique her performance because it's bad. Dern should feel embarrassed that her mom got her another Oscar nomination for a shit role. Gross.

Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game

Knightley delivers a quintessentially supporting performance here. Her character is recruited to help break the Enigma and is the only real female presence in the whole film, which is no small task! Her character is pretty much the classic female character calms and supports the awkward genius so that he can better focus on doing whatever he needs to do. That is the essence of her character and her performance. She is basically an equal of sorts to Turing and gets him to not act like such an arrogant asshole and sort of reigns him in so he can break the Enigma machine. I think Knightley does a perfect job at that role and as the only strong female presence is able to hold her own on screen with all the men. It's good, it's capable and Knightley is endearing but I'm not sure how Oscar-y it really is. But the argument could be made that she is the only female in a big Oscar film and does a good enough job holding her own with Cumberbatch. I'm okay with it being included in this group especially when they went to the Meryl Streep well for the 80th time because apparently there was no one else to choose from. It's a decent performance just not one that will likely be remembered when looking back on this year.

Emma Stone - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

I'm thinking that this nomination got swept up in all the Birdman love because when you watch it, you're left wondering just what exactly did they nominate? That's no knock on Stone, but she only has a handful of scenes, which admittedly do last pretty long, but still. She's Keaton's daughter in the film and is like a personal assistant I guess and back from a stint in rehab. Sounds like boilerplate actor progeny stuff and really is here. She only has one scene where she really shines and it's the scene that you saw at every single awards show because that's all they could play when they kept nominating her. Which is kinda weird since other performances get to pick and choose from Oscar worthy moments or big scenes and yet there is just that one for Emma Stone. In that one scene, she explodes into a doe eyed, spastic speech telling her dad that there's more important things going on in the world. It's not really profound or anything and fits the daughter who doesn't seem to give a shit about what her dad does and is putting on airs as the rehab kid. It's almost a stereotypical character but Stone does give it some pizzazz and she for sure brings a lot to the role that others probably couldn't. But. That big but. There's just not much else to her performance. She has two scenes with Edward Norton where they flirt but that's about it plus the ending scene. I know I expect a lot out of the nominees but they should at least be integral to the story! I dunno. I like Emma Stone but this is underwhelming.

Meryl Streep - Into the Woods

Yawn. This is getting boring now. I feel like the Academy's motto when it comes to the Actress categories is: "When in doubt, just vote for Meryl Streep again." Go ahead and watch Into the Woods and tell me that she deserved a nomination. Because you can't. She's not bad by any means, not at all! She actually is quite good as The Witch. Her opening scene grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until she's made her mark and left quite an impression. But she also has a pretty easy gig playing The Witch and can ham it up with some Meryl Streep flair so that it looks less hammy and more Streepy. When she bursts in and kicks off the story you think this is going to be a pretty great movie. It doesn't quite live up to that notion but it's not for lack of pizzazz by Streep, that's for sure. So she's able to clearly have fun as The Witch but if this were anyone else, there is no way they also would get a nomination out of it. That's the power of Streep, obviously, but also the downside of her acting that I'm complaining about a decent performance because it was nominated. It of course doesn't rank up with her best and when she's had so many good ones, and so many nominations period, that you have to compare them to each other and wonder what else this year could have taken it's place because I'm tired of seeing her decent performances make it. This is a fun performance but I'm not sure it needed to be included in the Oscars for it to be noticed - it is a Streep performance after all.

Kind of another down year. I didn't particularly enjoy any of the nominees. Either I thought they sucked or just wasn't really moved by them in any fashion. To pick a winner is actually really hard because none of them deserve it. So because Emma Stone is pretty hot, let's give it to her. The rest are just boring to me. Knightley is at least the most competent but she's just there to make Cumberbatch not look so gay. Her character is brilliant herself but completely glossed over. Streep is just out there having fun and it's nice to see but not Oscar worthy. Arquette just rubbed me the wrong way and Dern is a joke. Not a good year for Supporting Actress, but really when is it a good year? Hopefully 2015 delivers.

Oscar Winner: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
My Winner:  Emma Stone - Birdman or: (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Keira Knightley
Meryl Streep
Patricia Arquette
Laura Dern

Best Picture 2013

I've noticed that the last 2 years or so have all included films that I, for the most part, have really liked. There may be some that I'm not so keen on, but nothing that I outright hate. That's a good thing obviously and will stay mostly that way for 2014 (minus one film). I'm not sure if that means I'm warming up to more Oscar-type films or if Oscar is just meeting my tastes more in the recent years, but I like it! Maybe it's a shift in what Hollywood is putting out, and if so, I hope it continues because it's nice to root for favorites instead of against bad films. I suspect increasing the BP field to 5-10 helps and I hope they never go back to just 5. Anyway, let's finish up this year!

2013 Best Picture

12 Years a Slave

Wow. This is a tremendously powerful film and such a beautiful one at that. Director Steve McQueen has such an eye for insanely beautiful shots and some really inventive ones, too. The thing about those shots is that they don't stick out in a bad way or detract from the story. They serve to enhance and feel natural within the frame of the film, McQueen just has a great eye for aesthetics. Besides the landscape and scenes looking gorgeous, the acting is top notch with an incredibly moving performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor. Couple that with some wonderful supporting turns from Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Fassbender, and Lupita Nyong'o and you can understand why the film is so good. Unfortunately Brad Pitt has a small part that is pretty bad and feels too much like a glorified cameo, plus it seems like he didn't really try with the whole Canadian accent thing. The music is also a nice little component to the film. It's both memorable and unobtrusive, everything a good score should be. I'd say my biggest complaint about 12 Years is the dialogue. I find it hard to believe that people talked in such a very proper manner as to almost be Shakespearean. It's a little jarring and can kinda take me out of the film at it's most awkward sounding terms. That's really just a minor quibble because the rest of the film is damn good. The direction is phenomenal and really deserved a Best Director win for McQueen even if Alfonso Cuaron was also pretty great. There's a scene halfway through the film where Northup is hanging from a tree with his toes just barely touching the ground and you see the rest of the slaves in the background proceeding with business as usual not even looking at Northup while we hear the cacophony of cicadas as the only sounds. McQueen lingers on that scene for a bit and it's just so evocative and powerful that it won me over right there.There are a few of those kind of scenes in this film and they are all amazing and worth the watch alone. I'm also really happy that the Academy got this year so right. There was some wavering on who was the front runner and who might end up winning but 12 Years a Slave is the obvious choice to me and I'm glad it won because it offers up the best of filmmaking and the Oscars.

American Hustle

I think the most obvious thing about American Hustle is that it's like an imitation Scorsese film but nowhere near as good. Which is funny that a Scorsese film with a similar vibe was also up for Best Picture this year. This film was a front runner or at least neck and neck for a good portion of the Oscar race that year. I didn't understand the hype then and I only kinda get it now. David O. Russell made a recent period piece that had a bunch of big, recognizable names and it mixed pop culture and comedy and drama all together in this big salad bowl of a film. You eat a big salad with a bunch of toppings on it and think it's healthy but in reality it has the same amount of calories as a burger. That's American Hustle. It's not really high cinema; it's just a fun, entertaining film that appeals to adults. That's definitely what AH has going for it is that it's fun and ridiculous and at times looks like a bunch of friends making a movie together. The acting is uneven but has it's hilarious moments. Individually the performances can be really good, sadly just not the women in this one. The songs can feel shoehorned in or even completely out of place (looking at you Live and Let Die sequence) but also offer up some of that classic Scorsese feel. The looks are absurd but funny and authentic. The plot, even if it's based on true events, is insane and all over the place. Which is a gripe for the film as a whole. It's like it meanders from skit to skit, showing off that 70s and 80s flair. Russell seems more intent on purely entertaining us rather than crafting a great film and honestly there's nothing wrong with that but it does open it up to nitpicks. There's a lot of things that don't work for me in this film but then it's humor and absurdity comes in and saves it. So while I didn't buy into the hype of it being a front runner, it's still a wildly entertaining flick that I probably wouldn't turn off on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Not exactly the highest of praise, I know, but it's worth a watch for sure.

Captain Phillips

I've discovered that I really, really like Paul Greengrass films. A couple Bourne movies and United 93 which is incredibly intense and it's no wonder he'd make a great film like Captain Phillips. And intense certainly describes this one. I like that Greengrass wastes no time on any superfluous shit. He keeps the wife thing to a 3 minute minimum and Cpt Phillips is well on his way to boarding the ship. It's the same way in his other films, he gets straight to the point and we get straight on his intense and crazy ride. So obviously, this film is about the hijacking of the container ship Maersk Alabama which from what I understand was the first American ship hijacked in 200 years! If true, that's amazing and impressive. So in turn we get an amazing and impressive film buoyed by an amazing and impressive Tom Hanks performance. Like seriously, I have no idea how Tom Hanks did not make the Best Actor nominees for this role. He is beyond terrific. He's indescribably perfect for this role and my god, his portrayal of the Cpt at the end while in shock is unbelievable. The most accurate portrayal of shock on film probably. Throughout, Greengrass gives us only what we need and that's why I love him as a director. The high jacking is intense, the Navy rescue is even more intense. Intense, intense, intense. That's how Greengrass operates. The other thing about his films is that he doesn't vilify the terrorists or bad guys. He presents them as is. We even see the Somalis from their town all the way to the end in this and it serves to give them an equal voice almost. Barkhad Abdi also allows the humanity of the hijackers to be presented and we definitely take note since his performance is really good. This is a film that I feel doesn't get enough love and gets overlooked way too much when we talk about great recent films. Captain Phillips is no doubt a great recent film.

Dallas Buyers Club

How did no one tell me for years that I failed to write a review for this film? Or at least failed to copy it over correctly or something. Damn, I guess no one actually reads this. I enjoyed the film a bunch because it touches on a subject that I bet most Texans would like to plug their ears for and pretend it doesn't exist. Even in 2022, you know there are people who wish the AIDS pandemic and HIV and whatever else disease would just go away by pretending it doesn't exist or that they prayed it away. Yet we had straight males figuring out how to get treatment so they could cure themselves or at least figure out how to do so. The courage of McConaughey's character to try and enact a solution is what makes this film so amazing. Forced into an impossible situation, he tries to make the most of it and help as many people as he can get the meds and medical attention they need. He fights the Feds to get those meds and get better. It's sad that this is the 80s and he is knocked down at every turn and can't get the meds he needs until the FDA approves of it which is too late. Just a sad film about how AIDS victims were so motivated to fight for their lives and their health and got shit for it at every turn. A film I love for being so truthful and modern.

Gravity

Gravity is an experience. One that is absolutely better watched in a big movie theater with a big screen and big sound with a big soda and popcorn. I'm not one to usually say the theater experience is better because usually it doesn't matter to me, but this is one of those exceptions. Gravity is intense right from the beginning and never let's you go for all of it's hour and a half. It has some of the best, if not the best, CGI I've ever seen. It's to the point where if someone told you this was filmed in space you'd probably believe them - it's that amazing. And this is one of the few films that can survive on pure spectacle alone. If there was no dialogue at all, I'd still be glued to the screen for the entirety of the film because it is so engrossing and mesmerizing. The story itself is bare bones and a bit far fetched but it does have a great leading female performance from Sandra Bullock and how many films these days on the level of Gravity can say that? I get that the story does veer into the absurd with the whole avoiding debris on the space walk then somehow managing to fly to two different space stations in the nick of time and continue surviving. It is absurd but I look at it like a science fiction film rather than any true life portrayal, this could really happen situational type thing. When I saw this in theaters, however, I did get frustrated at what I thought was a couple fake endings - or at least what felt like fake outs with Bullock seeming to give up only to keep going at the last second. I wondered if she had failed on reaching the Chinese space station or while piloting the Russian one, would it have made for a bad film? I think it would have been different but not bad. I don't think Bullock making it to Earth really made the difference honestly. It did create some symbolism with a creature emerging out of the water like it's an evolutionary thing (or rebirth) and the fetal position once Bullock reached the first airlock being like she was in the womb and a throw back to older science fiction films. Thinking about it more makes the ending fit a lot better to me but at the time I was kind of annoyed at what I thought were some cheesy fake outs. Anyway, run ons aside, Alfonso Cuaron crafted one heck of a film and one that fully deserves to be here.

Her

Her is a really interesting film. On the surface, it just looks like it's going to be another meet cute type film but with a little twist. But when you scratch the surface and look deeper, there's a lot more going on and a lot more it has to say about the world around us. There's also a lot to love about Her starting with the visual style which is calming yet engaging. The color palette suits the film so well and suits the near future technology obsessed society well, also. The best thing about Her, however, is Scarlett Johansson as the voice of the personal operating system thingy. I mean, she absolutely kills it in her role and does much more than be a kind of narrator or disembodied voice. She brings life to a character we never get see through her inflections and tone and style of talking. It's an amazing feat that an actress can establish her presence in a film with just her voice. It leaves everything up to our imagination so that we can create whatever version of her that we want almost like Phoenix's character can. Speaking of Phoenix, he does another masterful job with his performance capturing the charmingly nerdy yet sad hipster character to a tee. Compare this performance with his role in The Master the year before and you really start to understand the amount of talent the man has. Both men are loners to some degree but are portrayed in such opposite ways that you can't believe that both come from the same actor. The two actors also have great chemistry but are never on screen at the same time and from what I understand Scarlett's role was actually first completed by Samantha Morton before being scrapped which makes it even more amazing that the chemistry is so tangible. It feels lame to describe this film as sweet and gentle but Her really does evoke those adjectives while watching. It's a sensitive film that will appeal greatly to those in touch with their emotions and that's not a bad thing! It will make you think about lost loves and wish you had an entity to talk to whenever that would talk back and help analyze everything you're going through. Which sounds oddly like a best friend or significant other but I think my point is understood. Her is a devastatingly emotional film that will make you cherish your friendships. Her is simply a fantastic film about what could possibly be soon.

Nebraska

It is no secret that the Academy loves it some Alexander Payne. At first I'm always a bit wary or incredulous because every time I watch one of his films, I initially don't like it or am very ambivalent towards it. Then all of the sudden I keep thinking about it and it creeps into my mind and I suddenly find an appreciation for them and realize he's a pretty good director who makes films that offer up a bit more of a cerebral take on adult life. Nebraska was/is no different. First watched it and was a bit underwhelmed at the beginning but actually towards the end of watching the film I already started to make my usual turn in favor of it. You read the synopsis and it doesn't sound like it's going to be all that amazing and then you learn it's in black and white and you go oh, man this is going to be pretentious. Neither are accurate. The black and white aspect is magnificently shot and brings a wistful sense of days gone by. I think it's a good choice to capture that small town feel that the film has. It makes it intimate and cozy in a strange way. Payne is great at coaxing out great performances from his actors and this film is no different. June Squibb and Bruce Dern were both nominated but I thought Will Forte was excellent as the son and even Bob Odenkirk as the other son was wonderful. It's a road trip movie at it's heart but it's also about remembering the past and learning about your history. It has a very sad and melancholic feel at times, especially when the family visits Dern's boyhood home. It's a very tender moment that makes you think about your own family and your own past and makes you feel all the feels. I think Nebraska perfectly captures a lot of families in America who pounce on those who strike it rich and who gossip about each other and talk without saying anything of substance and who don't know that their dad was in a war and who bicker more than anything with each other. It encapsulates what is the heartland of America on film, which is a truly remarkable thing. And it's done in a very realistic way, almost has a documentary feel. I think I just like it because it does remind me so much of the past and about being close to family, and deep down that's what it's about - family. I'm eager to see what Payne does next.

Philomena

So this film fills the spot of random British film that no one saw yet somehow made it's way into the Oscar race and secured a bunch of nominations. And oh look, it's a Judi Dench film, joy! Except no, not joy, this is a film that upon second watch doesn't hold up despite it's tear jerker ending that's designed to persuade you it's actually a legit good film derrrr. If I sound a little bitter, it's because I'm tired of Dench in the Oscar reviews and I'm tired of middling films that pretend they are more important than they really are gaining a foothold among the Academy because they are British or by a certain director or feature a certain actor. Philomena fits because it's the British entry and while I can kinda understand it's inclusion, at this moment in time I'm fed the fuck up with it all. Maybe if I reviewed this tomorrow I'd be writing a more tame review but right now I just don't care. So Philomena is about an old Irish woman (Dench) who gets in contact with a journalist to find out where her son is. But she had the son in a nunnery where they made her work to pay off her debt and then sold her son to American parents in an adoption scheme because nothing good comes from nuns ever and it becomes a bit of an issue. I hate the religious types and certainly a film where the idiot Catholics sell babies to make money and then later stonewall the mother in locating where her son is is right up my alley but while it does wind up in that direction of being anti Church, the actual Philomena forgives the nuns and basically everyone ever and lives this ridiculous daft life where things seemingly don't have consequences because God or something. I hate the notion and I vehemently side with Steve Coogan's character who is the journalist and who is legitimately angry and tries to make the old nun answer to her sins and chides the current nunnery staff about how wrong they are. Steve Coogan is great in this and gives the film it's soul. The film itself is the basic British film that always finds its way over year after year so just imagine that and you've got this one. This film was done by the guy who did The Queen so it's a very matter of fact style with a bit over melodrama thrown in for good measure. Anyway, I think I'm just in a mood, but my dislike for this film is legit. Watch it twice so you don't get hoodwinked.

The Wolf of Wall Street

In many ways, this is the typical Martin Scorsese film of recent years: big, flashy, entertaining, great performances. Which of course sounds like the Martin Scorsese films of yesteryear, too. Point being his newer films feel a bit more fresh and flashy to me. And that's kinda what The Wolf of Wall Street is all about: sex, drugs, money, power, excess. I know it was meant to be a satirical take on that kind of lifestyle, about how absurd and insane and destructive it all is but I can understand those that say it glorifies all that excess, too. Because it absolutely does. It's a hilarious look into that lifestyle but when you're laughing and watching these guys have fun and bang lots of chicks and make money, you can't help but think that it's pretty cool and that man, I kinda wish my life was that fun and crazy. But you also have to be intelligent enough to understand that's Hollywood on the screen and while that might look fun would kill you quick or send you to jail even quicker. That was the big controversy surrounding this film and I just wanted to give my two cents in as well. The rest of the film is pure Scorsese with a great musical selection that doesn't overpower like in some other of his films. Great performances as per usual and maybe the best collaboration with DiCaprio so far. The story is pretty interesting even though it does follow a bunch of assholes as they get high and steal money, essentially. My big complaint is the same for most every Scorsese film I've seen: they are too damn long! With some more economical editing, his films might be even better. If they were a bit more focused or tighter and if the fat were trimmed, maybe he'd have another win at some point. But as they are now, they are too long which means parts of the film sags and some parts are boring and some parts are repetitive, which is all true in this film. Scorsese is so on top of his game, however, that he can survive things like that and still make a pretty awesome film that stands up to rest of his oeuvre. All in all, The Wolf of Wall Street is a wild, fun ride to enjoy.

 

This might be the best more than 5 nominee year I've seen so far. This year is very top end heavy which means I really like a couple of these films. That's all I ever want year to year is to like all the films and to find new favorites. 12 Years a Slave is a new favorite and a great flipping film. I fully believe it will be considered a modern classic very, very soon and possibly be on all those best of all time lists. I can't say enough great things about it and I kinda want to watch Chiwetel Ejiofor again right now. Next up would be Captain Phillips which is my underrated film of the last couple years because it's so, so good yet no one really talks about it yet everyone agrees it's good. Paul Greengrass has become a favorite of mine for his absolute honesty in his films and that's what sets Captain Phillips apart. I think I underrated Dallas Buyers Club and forgot how powerful it actually is. Obviously it has some great acting and was deservedly rewarded for that. Next is Gravity but that might change if I last saw it on a huge screen. It makes a difference but is still a strong film. Then it's kind of a toss up between Nebraska and Her which are both visually compelling with great performances. But I just kinda like the family dynamic of Nebraska just a bit more. Then we come to the fun craziness of Wolf of Wall Street. Just turn your brain off and enjoy the ride. Finally we get to the two that I don't really have a ton of love for. Philomena is buoyed by Steve Coogan and American Hustle is more like everyone got together after Silver Linings Playbook and decided to make a 70s-80s movie real quick. Both have some good performances but are lesser than the sum of their parts. A hell of a year though! One I'll probably come back to again and again to watch some good films.

Oscar Winner: 12 Years a Slave
My Winner:  12 Years a Slave
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Nebraska
Her
The Wolf of Wall Street
Philomena
American Hustle

Leading Actor 2013

This is another impressive Best Actor group. Plus, it leaves off Tom Hanks who could easily replace anyone on here without skipping a beat. What a great year for the men.

2013 Best Actor

Matthew McConaughey - Dallas Buyers Club

Ah yes, the culmination of the McConaissance! Look, no matter if you hated this performance for whatever weird reason, McConaughey had one hell of a run for about a year or two and fully deserved the Oscar for that alone. Now I might be hypocritical for saying that because I always think it should go to the best performance and not because someone is due or is old or has some sob story but this is an exception. McConaughey has always been a pretty good actor but got bogged down in doing lots of romcoms and then all of the sudden he exploded back onto the serious acting scene. Look at this list of films: The Lincoln Lawyer, Bernie, Killer Joe, Mud, The Paper Boy (awful film but he's great in it), Magic Mike, and The Wolf of Wall Street. All pretty great performances and all varied in their type of characters, which shows how amazing his couple years truly was. That's leaving out his best performance (in my opinion) from True Detective. So his win for Dallas Buyers Club was definitely the end result of a couple years of just completely amazing work. And I'm so glad he was rewarded and the Academy recognized that fact as well. That's not to take away anything from this performance, either! This is just another great one from McConaughey. Throw away the impressive weight loss aspect and you still have a heartfelt, intense, and important portrayal of a man riddled with HIV/AIDS fighting to stay alive despite the government's lack of concern. What impressed me so much about this one was that McConaughey seems so natural which makes sense as he is a Texan and Ron Woodruff is a Texan. But more than that it's the dialogue which feels improvised and honest. Sometimes films suffer from literary or awkward, unnatural speech from it's characters but not Ron Woodruff. He is entirely believable as a character even if he can be an asshole at times. I think we as the audience like that American spirit in Ron as he tries to stay alive while doing everything he can to subvert the government in getting AIDS medication from Mexico and Japan and doling it out to others who need it instead of taking AZT which is mostly lethal and doesn't much help. McConaughey plays Ron as honestly as he can and that's what makes DBC so good is the honesty in it's story and direction. A well deserved win for a great performance and a great 2 year run of films.

Christian Bale - American Hustle

I'm not sure if Bale or Cooper is the best part of American Hustle, but they are both pretty close. While Cooper is clearly having fun just hamming it up, Bale gives a very dedicated performance that at times seems far removed from all the craziness going on around him in the film. It really is like he's acting in a totally different film at times. You could say that's a bad thing but I think it works here because the film is so crazy itself. And that's not to say Bale doesn't have some great comedic moments, because he absolutely does. It's just that he's not so on the nose about it like Cooper or so clearly pandering and overacting in a bad way like Lawrence. It's as if because Bale is the main focus of the film that he has to ground it himself and bring a little reality and sanity to an otherwise insane film. I like the performance, though, because Bale is so dedicated to his character. Not only the weight gain and comb over look but just the passion of this grifter who has all these different sides pulling him in different directions wanting different things. He's a guy that continuously oversteps his bounds or at least bites off more than he can chew and it's fun to watch him weasel his way out of, or into, situations. I really just like Bale's earnestness in his portrayal of Irving, which is something we've come to expect from him. No different here even if his inclusion in this group was a minor surprise since Tom Hanks gave a pretty great performance and didn't get in. With the amount of fun performances in American Hustle, it's a shame the film itself wasn't any better. Bale gives an earnest, decent performance.

Bruce Dern - Nebraska

Of the three Nebraska reviews to write, this was the absolute hardest. I think that's due mainly to Dern's character being so blase and indifferent to life. His character is known for not saying much, he's grumpy and perturbed when people bug him, and just a guy that seems to want to stick to himself. He thinks he's won a million dollars in a sweepstakes through the mail even though it's a scam and his son offers to drive him to Nebraska to show him that. He's got a very sour demeanor and personality but I think that fits growing up in the heartland where there's not a lot happening and plus we also learn he was in the Korean War and came back affected. That right there would point to why he drank a lot and is so shut off and negative. Dern does a great job in portraying him as such a grump and does a great job with the affectations he has such as the limp, hearing difficulties, shuffling, etc. that define the elder Grant. It's all at once a sad and melancholic performance because after awhile of watching you wish he was a bit more open and a bit more loved. When Woody and his family go to his boyhood home and we get that very subdued look into his childhood and persona and mind, we start rooting for him to win the million dollars and to be happy and for the family to be alright. A lot of that I think is due to the viewer transposing their own life onto the characters and hoping for a good outcome. That's what the film and Dern's performance evokes from us and that's pretty incredible.The end with Woody driving by everyone in his new truck is heartwarming as well and speaks to the larger themes of the film. It's a quietly good performance by Dern.

Leonardo DiCaprio - The Wolf of Wall Street

Doesn't every new DiCaprio performance feel like it's the role he was born to play? I feel like you can say that about most of his roles because they feel like they were tailor made just for him and everyone was waiting for him to take them on. Wolf of Wall Street is no different. DiCaprio seems born to play Jordan Belfort and like his turn as Jay Gatsby was a dry run for this performance. By now, DiCaprio and Scorsese have such a good rapport with each other and can obviously bring out the best in each other that it's fun to watch these two work. It also appears that DiCaprio is just having tons of fun in this role which offers up a lot of crazy antics, situations, and scenes. The film itself is crazy and fun and a whirlwind of sex, drugs, money, drugs, women, drugs, and booze. DiCaprio seems more at ease in these kind of fun roles instead of his serious ones and it's more enjoyable to watch him when he's like that, at least for me. It's not as if he's gunning for that elusive Oscar so obviously like in some of his other performances. Just be the awesome DiCaprio we know you can be, ya know? And a lot of that awesome DiCaprio shows up in the couple different motivational speaker type scenes with his company. It's DiCaprio just taking over the scene and killing it, basically. His performance is just a lot of fun to watch and I know I've said that already but it really is. It's kind of like you can turn your brain off and just watch and laugh and admire the great work everyone is putting in. Is it DiCaprio's best? Probably not, but it's his most accessible and easy going, for sure. Did he deserve to win the Oscar this year? Not when compared to this group, but that's not a knock on him obviously. It's hard not to like DiCaprio here and in a weaker year he may just have won for a pretty interesting performance.

Chiwetel Ejiofor - 12 Years a Slave

I fell in love with Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance almost immediately while watching this film the first time. That love only grew the second time I watched it. He is the engine that drives the film, dependable and stalwart. He plays Solomon Northup, a free man from New York who was caught by slavers and sold into slavery in the South. There's a million adjectives I could use to describe why I love the performance so much but delicate and subdued, yet mighty and authoritative is a good start. Towards the very end when McQueen keeps the camera on Ejiofor staring off into space at dusk contemplating life and his predicament and then he looks towards the camera for a few seconds and it's eerily powerful. As if Northup himself is staring at us, the audience, with a plaintive, pleading, accusatory, hollow look that screams how could something like this ever happen in history - and continue to happen even now across the world. That may be reading a bit too much into that moment in an amazing film but Ejiofor conveys a look that speaks volumes in just a few short seconds. That's great acting drilled down to it's very essence and convinced me that Ejiofor was my favorite for the year among a very strong group. Ejiofor does so much with this performance throughout the film by being so restrained in a lot of moments where you'd expect, hell - where you WANT him to react violently or passionately but he doesn't. It's a masterclass in acting. He creates a very sympathetic character but never devolves into schlock or cheap acting to make us feel a certain way. He just presents Northup as a man and let's us see the humanity in his character. This is just an utterly brilliant performance by Ejiofor.


Again, if you included Tom Hanks here for Captain Phillips it would only improve an already great group. I'd have switched out Bale for Hanks but the Academy does what it wants. My winner would be Ejiofor who I believe gave a performance that will be remembered as great for years and years to come, one that is classic. McConaughey was deep in his McConaissance so I approve of his win since it's hard to not love his recent little explosion of awesome. Then I'd say Leo because he just looks to be having so much fun and gives an easy going, awesome performance at the same time. Dern was the one I was always unsure about going in but his delicate take on a man wanting to claim a lottery prize is touching. Bale brings up the rear because I'm not a fan of his film and he is easily the weakest of this group.

Oscar Winner: Matthew McConaughey - Dallas Buyers Club
My Winner:   Chiwetel Ejiofor - 12 Years a Slave
Matthew McConaughey
Leonardo DiCaprio
Bruce Dern
Christian Bale

Leading Actress 2013

I was none too enthused about this group when the nominees were announced. I'm still none too enthused about this group 2 years later.

2013 Best Actress

Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine

I never, ever understood the hype for Blanchett in this film. I get that people were eager to see her in a Woody Allen written role but after watching it, I didn't get all the effusive love. Maybe it just never clicked with me, but I didn't think it was worth a second win for Blanchett. First of all, she plays the character so over the top that it was hard for me to really become invested in the character. Plus, Woody wrote her as such an insufferable character which also leads to not really caring about her. I get that the character was a bit over the top to begin with but I do think Blanchett just overplays it. It's too on the nose and too obviously acting. I was just as annoyed at Blanchett as the old lady in the beginning of the film who had to sit next to her character on the plane and she wouldn't shut up. Her story arc wasn't compelling in the least, it was way too short, and no one is gonna care about a very rich woman who loses her wealth only to lie to try and get it back and trick another man. There is no doubt that Blanchett is a great actress. That great acting ability shines through a lot in this performance but it doesn't save it unfortunately. The very end of the film is really some nice acting by Blanchett and felt like her Oscar moment. It also speaks to the whole mental illness thing which I've harped on a lot but her character clearly suffers from something and it's glossed over and used as a joke quite often. Maybe a more serious look at her problem would make for a better film, obviously that wouldn't be a very Woody Allen film, though. There just seems to be a lot lacking from Blanchett's character for me to really understand why this was so loved and why it won here. I think voters just really like Woody Allen female nominations for some reason and really liked the overacting from Blanchett. To me, I wanted a whole lot more from the performance.

Amy Adams - American Hustle

I really wanted to like Amy Adams in this performance, I really did. But unfortunately I really disliked it and this might be the first performance of hers that I haven't liked (at least Oscar nominations wise). For whatever reason it just never clicked with me. I felt her character was uninspired and Adams wasn't able to salvage anything from it with her performance. She was essentially there to look hot and be the meat for the male characters to ogle and fight over. And in a film where everyone is overacting and the plot is ridiculous (no matter how true) Adams doesn't really do much to stand out. It's frankly a boring performance, which is unfortunate because we all know Adams is incredibly talented. Probably doesn't help that I don't look at Adams as any kind of sex symbol, so when the sex appeal is all her character has then there is nothing else to save it. I'd say the one plus I can think of is that she has decent chemistry with Bale, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise. But other than that, I really can't muster up anything else to say about her performance. It's not very interesting and not one that I want to come back to any time soon.

Sandra Bullock - Gravity

I was pretty harsh on Bullock in the past for the abomination that was The Blindside, but damn if this isn't a really, really good performance. I know that she's capable of giving them but it's nice to actually see it and see it rewarded. This is kind of the quintessential strong female leading performance. One that should be pointed to when talking about how women don't get many leading roles in science fiction or big budget movies as an example of why they should be given that chance. Bullock is a good role model for young women to look up to with this role. A scientist who becomes an astronaut who, while faced with certain death and insurmountable adversity, prevails and successfully returns to Earth. Hell, that's someone everyone could look up to! Now, in the beginning Bullock is pretty annoying with her whole nervous, super newbie persona and you start to think oh no, they're making the woman astronaut out to be a complete joke. But eventually Bullock musters up her courage and training and pulls it together and gets things done. When I was first watching I was really worried she would stay this sort of bumbling wreck but I'm glad she didn't. Obviously the writers wanted her character to show growth and luckily Bullock is good in not making that transition seem insincere or forced. Bullock's performance is pretty strong as I said and I really enjoy seeing her persevere and figure out how to survive to the next obstacle. Maybe that's a little sadistic, I don't know, but I enjoyed seeing her overcome all the odds. I know this sounds like I'm underselling the performance or that I wasn't that into it but I was and her performance is the best to me out of this sad group.

Judi Dench - Philomena

I know it's unfair but, man, I'm tired of Judi Dench nominations, legit over them. I'm over them because they are all pretty much the same with some minor variations here and there and once you've seen one, you've basically seen the rest. I get that Dench is a great actress but I know for sure that some of her nominations aren't worth being included in the Oscar world. Yeah, that's harsh but I think people reading this can definitely understand where I'm coming from. So is Dench's performance in Philomena an example of what I'm talking about? Yes and no. It's the same sort of meek character that eventually proves to be this really strong woman underneath her surly/shy/whatever demeanor. This time she's an older woman whose daughter tells Steve Coogan (who I absolutely love by the way) about how a nunnery made her give her son away for an American couple to adopt so they could make money. Coogan is a journalist and writes an expose about the bullshit nunnery who hid behind religion to enact atrocities on underprivileged, desperate young women. However, Dench's character is this daft old lady who makes for a boring watch. Every time Dench was talking or the focus of the story, I got bored. Steve Coogan is the only saving grace of the film. And the only voice of reason as Dench's character is an idiot who doesn't press to know what happened to her son and when learning she was screwed out of meeting him potentially forgives the idiot, asshole religious people who kept it a secret. Just watching this a second time, I dislike it when before I was like ok, not bad. Nah, not anymore. Not a fan and the whole forgiveness angle rings hollow. Just another Dench performance I'm not that enthused about.

Meryl Streep - August: Osage County

Another year, another Meryl Streep nomination. A couple things about this one, though: this performance is in the wrong category to me. Switch out Julia Roberts for this one and make Meryl the Supporting and things would be way more accurate. They felt Roberts might have a better chance to win in Supporting but it just looks ridiculous. Meryl is clearly supporting to me and she should be in that category. The other thing is that this is actually a pretty decent Meryl performance, even by her standards. Sure, she gets the benefit of the doubt way too much (her nomination in the next year is an example of that) but this one is good. She plays the matriarch of a family in Oklahoma who has cancer but is still an ornery asshole. The whole family comes back to town for the father's funeral and we get a day in the life situation. Streep's character is very unlikable. She berates her kids and makes fun of them and calls them out for their shortcomings all the while she's had issues herself. It feels true to life with a matriarch ruining a family gathering because she is stuck on her own power trip. And that's what it is. A power trip. It's the mother not wanting to concede power just because she is sick and continuing to hound her family. There are moments where Streep can make the character feel sympathetic but then she immediately cancels it out with a mean remark and you go back to hating her. Streep nails the accent as usual and looks and walks the part with her missing hair and shuffling demeanor. She's really great as the matriarch putting down her progeny and is also good in the tender moments, few they may be. It's typical mid level Streep performance and is not a bad inclusion for Oscar if only it were in the right category!


I hated, HATED how this category turned out and how it was essentially over very early. It was Blanchett's to lose since the beginning really and it made for one boring year for Best Actress. No one else really came close. Maybe Bullock but not really. She was my winner and one I thought was more than deserved and if I could replace her win earlier for The Blindside, well, maybe I could right some wrongs. I guess Streep comes in second because she's the lesser of what's left even though she deserves to be in Supporting. But whatever. Blanchett, Dench, and Adams. Just blech. I'll never watch any of their performances again while I'm alive and if I do it's because someone is torturing me.

Oscar Winner: Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine
My Winner:   Sandra Bullock - Gravity
Meryl Streep
Cate Blanchett
Judi Dench
Amy Adams

Supporting Actor 2013

Favorite category time again! I know it won't let me down and I can't wait to watch these guys again.

2013 Best Supporting Actor

Jared Leto - Dallas Buyers Club

I think it's kind of easy to dismiss Leto as simply dressing up as a woman and that's about it. But his performance has way more depth than first meets the eye and that's all because of Leto's ability. He makes Rayon much more than just a costume or caricature. Rayon feels natural and lived in and doesn't seem like a walking exaggeration, which can always be a huge problem when portraying a trans person. It's easy to slip into making fun of them or portraying them as nothing but loud, dramatic queens which of course isn't representative of them as a whole. I think Leto's dedication in losing lots of weight and talking with lots of trans people to better understand them and represent them shows. His chemistry with McConaughey is very apparent even when Ron and Rayon are at odds with each other. It's like they are an old couple at times and certainly like they are good friends at other times. Leto's performance also allows the general public to see that trans people aren't these terrible, awful degenerates. They are people first and foremost and can be kind, caring, and just like people you know. I think that's why Leto's performance works is because it's a very honest one. And of course, the Academy loves a good transformation like weight loss and playing a woman, so that certainly helped Leto here, too. But Leto does give a great performance even without the transformation stuff and one that resonated with the voters.

Barkhad Abdi - Captain Phillips

This was a terrific performance out of nowhere. I mean when I first watched this film, I thought that damn, that hijacker guy was really fucking good and it would be so cool if he could get some recognition for being awesome. And get some recognition did he! Barkhad won a BAFTA which is no small feat. What I always liked about Abdi's performance was that he brought the human element to the terrorist/hijacker, something that we all too often don't get. We understood that they did this because of the hopelessness of their situation in Somalia. They probably never expected to get killed or captured and were definitely not trained to take lots of hostages or stand up to the US Navy. Another amazing thing about Abdi was that he ad libbed the "Look at me, I'm the Captain now" phrase. That phrase has been widely parodied, mocked, imitated, and lauded for it's badass nature. The fact that it was made up on the spot yet became a cinematic phrase on par with "Rosebud" and "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" is mind blowing. He brings an intimidating presence without being unrealistic. With all that said, this guy was a first time actor! He came from Somalia when little and never acted before which is just nuts to think about because he is so good. From the beginning and asserting dominance to the end where he realizes all hope is lost. Abdi gives a really impressive performance.

Bradley Cooper - American Hustle

I definitely wasn't the biggest fan of American Hustle, but I actually kinda liked Cooper in this role. I felt it was a lot more palatable than his turn in Silver Linings Playbook. It was evident to me that Cooper was having a lot of fun playing the FBI agent and was perfectly happy hamming it up in a very likable role. The performance itself is pretty uneven, but that's because the hamming it up thing doesn't work the entire time. Plus, the script and plot make his character look a bit ridiculous at times which Cooper struggles to overcome. It's way more hit than miss, however, and Cooper displays some great comedic chops. That's when it seems extremely evident that he's loving his character and loving acting with his pals. Every time his character is on screen you are guaranteed to laugh at something and his badgering of Louis CK is pretty hilarious. It's just a lot of fun to watch Cooper work in this role and his enthusiasm is contagious. I'd say he's having the most fun out of anyone in the film, honestly. Like playing with house money and getting an Oscar nomination out of it. It's kind of nice to see passion rewarded and I can't hate on this nomination very much. It's not the best but it is entertaining and all nominations should at least be that.

Michael Fassbender - 12 Years a Slave

I didn't remember Fassbender being as good as he is in this performance. I kinda remembered that he was a mean, drunk slave owner but he does bring a lot more depth to the role than I remember. It's obviously the most flashy role in the entire film and one that if done poorly, could be very, very bad. Fassbender does not do a poor job, however, and delivers a pretty convincing and decent performance. The easy route would have been to go over the top with a character like this, creating a caricature of what a loud, belligerent slave owner might look like. But Fassbender mixes in some thoughtfulness and humanity even if those emotions aren't readily apparent or even easy to see. He's a man set in his ways but has moments of weakness (or maybe you could call it strength) where he realizes that he's acting inhumane and you feel like you can see his brain debating whether to continue the ill treatment of his property/slaves. Fassbender is here to provide the fuel to an ever growing fire of disgust and hatred of the system and the culture of that time for the audience and he does a rather convincing job of stoking the flames. He's essentially a villain but he doesn't portray his character in a cartoony way, which I think some of that can be because of McQueen as well. It can be weird calling a character such as Epps a good performance but Fassbender is able to make me do just that. Hopefully we will see much more of Fassbender in the Oscars to come.

Jonah Hill - The Wolf of Wall Street

Jonah brings a lot more to this role than he did to his Moneyball role and that should come as no surprise. Apparently he begged Scorsese or the producers to let him take the role and even took really low pay to play the part. I guess if you're going to go to those extremes, you need to deliver a performance that is Oscar worthy, right? Hill brings the comedic chops to a supporting role that is basically comic relief, but really good comic relief. There's a lot of humor in this film so Hill fits right in and makes the character and performance work. He plays an obnoxious asshole stockbroker friend of Jordan Belfort and runs with it. It's over the top but the whole film is over the top so it doesn't stand out in a negative way. A lot of his antics are pretty hilarious so it's easy to see why Hill would be remembered and nominated. And that's really about all there is to it which isn't a bad thing. Sometimes it's nice to see comedy roles get nominated, even dark comedy roles such as this one.
 
Another great group for Supporting Actor. There's not one among these guys that I dislike or even remotely kinda, sorta only somewhat like. Nope. All of these dudes are pretty good and give some fun performances. And that seems to be the theme for this year: fun. I would give my win to Abdi as his performance came out of nowhere and rivaled Tom Hanks in that film, which is no easy feat. Then clearly Leto who I'm ok with winning the actual Oscar, followed by Fassbender bringing it in his film, then Cooper and Hill hamming it up. Everyone just seemed to be having fun in their roles and that's always great to see.

Oscar Winner: Jared Leto - Dallas Buyers Club
My Winner:  Barkhad Abdi - Captain Phillips
Jared Leto
Michael Fassbender
Bradley Cooper
Jonah Hill

Supporting Actress 2013

Almost current! Not gonna waste any more time and will get right to it. A good group that should be fun to revisit.

2013 Best Supporting Actress

Lupita Nyong'o - 12 Years a Slave

I'll be honest, when I first watched this I didn't even know which character was Lupita. I knew she was being mentioned as a possible nominee but I guess I just overlooked her. This was the first time I've watched it since she won so I was keen to see if she really deserved a win and wasn't just a token win. Having now watched it again, I'm a bit divided and uncertain. She plays Patsey, a slave who has caught the eye of Master Epps and suffers because of it. And suffer does she! That's essentially what the whole performance is, showing the extremes of the female perspective of ill treatment of the time. She is raped by Epps who lauds her for outworking the men in the fields, but Epps' wife hates her because she knows he fancies Patsey over her and makes her life a hell on earth. She is savagely beaten and doesn't seem to be close with the other slaves. It's a pitiful existence and Lupita is able to express that pain very well in her performance. Patsey doesn't get much opportunity to talk and we see her in spurts and I feel like Lupita never is able to let Patsey shine. I can see why everyone loved it and voted for it but I'm just slightly unsure if it being a slave film and part had any reasoning in that. It's a very physical role for Lupita since her character doesn't do that much talking and she uses that chance to let her acting show the hellish circumstances of her character. There's a certain amount of bravery in the performance and she really is a conduit for a whole generation of slave women. I'm just not sure if there was enough to the performance for me to want it to win. I may have to let it sink in a while to really evaluate it but for now just being in pain and suffering a lot isn't enough for me.

Sally Hawkins - Blue Jasmine

I really like this performance. It's purely supporting in the best way. But, I would have preferred if Woody Allen focused on Hawkins' character instead of Blanchett's. It's more interesting and more natural and that's all thanks to Hawkins. Her storyline is a bit overly simplified, but I think that's because it's pushed to the background. If the entire movie was about her character it might have been more fleshed out. Either way, Hawkins is entertaining in her role and makes me want to see her more. It doesn't help that Blanchett's character is insufferable and her performance is over the top. Hawkins brings a natural ability to her role and fits really well within the Woody Allen female archetype. This isn't any sort of overwhelming, amzing performance - it's just good. But when you don't like the main character and find your mind wandering to what would a full movie for Hawkins be like, well, that's a pretty good performance indeed. At least Allen is able to write some pretty decent female roles even if his films are so hit and miss with me. The thing about this nomination is that it made me want to check out more films from Hawkins, so I count that as a win.

Jennifer Lawrence - American Hustle

Ugh. There's actually a lot to not like about this performance. For one, it feels like the Academy is unreasonably infatuated with her and are going to nominate her no matter what like she's some kind of young Meryl Streep. She definitely doesn't deserve that type of love (yet) and this role certainly doesn't. So obviously they want to keep rewarding her for whatever reason - fine. But Lawrence in this role is way too young. She doesn't fit the character AT ALL. She sticks out like a sore thumb for me and she overacts in response. Maybe that's due to her trying to keep up with her co-stars but she just does not look like she belongs in this film. And then you have the cringe worthy Live and Let Die sequence which is just stupid. But really the whole time you're just thinking how out of place Lawrence looks compared to everyone else and it's all that stands out about her performance. There was some real buzz that Lawrence would repeat as a winner and I can't understand why. Even if you throw out the youth factor what are you left with exactly? Her character is the snotty, annoying, abrasive wife of Bale's character and is loud and overbearing in all of her scenes. The character and film itself is essentially just like Lawrence's character but that just means it's easy to act with no refinement (I realize how pretentious I sound). It's similar to her winning performance the year earlier and that makes sense given it's the same writer/director again. With it being similar, there's nothing to set it apart and make it special. An underwhelming and frustrating performance from Lawrence.

Julia Roberts - August: Osage County

This is straight up category fraud and I have no idea why The Weinstein Company put Julia here instead of in Leading and put Streep here instead. I guess they figured she could win here instead of going up against the Cate Blanchett juggernaut. I think it's some lame power play BS but Roberts is most definitely a Leading role in this film. And she's really flipping good. I loved this performance so much. It was very raw and powerful and real and just damn good. She's really the only sensible person in her screwed up family and the only one to stand up to Streep's overbearing mother. She is the glue that holds the family together and that sort of strong role obviously suits Roberts very well. This performance also lacks most, if not all, of the Julia quirks and annoyances. She dives 100% into the character and doesn't give off her America's Sweetheart charm you can find in lots of her roles. She is a realist and plainly tired of her mother's and family's shit. Roberts does well with being the strong daughter not taking any gruff from Streep, but she also shines in the tender moments that are true to life for families. You can go from telling your mother off to caring deeply and commiserating about her cancer diagnosis. Roberts is a veteran actress and easily switches between the extremes without losing any truth in the performance. I also have to say that it was nice to see Julia back in a legit film, in a legit role just bringing a great performance to the screen again. She's been missing for too long and I feel she can give more Oscar worthy turns like this in the future.

June Squibb - Nebraska

The first time I watched this film and performance, I didn't much like Squibb's portrayal of her character. Just thought she was ornery and vulgar for no reason other than some laughs and didn't really do much else. But as with all of Alexander Payne's films, they sort of creep into my subconscious and I realize they are actually a lot better than what my initial reaction thinks. Same goes for Squibb here. I grew to appreciate her character a lot more and thought a bit more highly of it than just comic relief. She actually has a badass moment where she tells the family off for wanting hand outs from her husband who they think struck it rich and reminding them that he's helped them in so many ways. It's a very true to life portrayal that is way more than just funny because she says fuck and shows a gravestone her hooha. She has a real love for her family even if she bitches at them non-stop, acting like a tigress when some outside force threatens them. She reminds me of the sassy grandma or aunt who says whatever about anyone or anything because she just doesn't care what anyone thinks. I feel like I kinda wish Squibb was related to me somehow so she could have my back and then I could also here her hilarious quips all the time. I like how feisty she is and apparently Oscar did too and I can't blame them. I'm glad Squibb got this nomination.

Another year, another Supporting Actress group. This year is at least waaaaaay better than usual. They all offer up something interesting and makes this one of the better Supporting Actress groups I've done. Julia Roberts is easily my winner probably by virtue of being a Leading role placed in this category. But from there it gets interesting. June Squibb skyrocketed up my rankings because she's just so damn charming in a gruff sort of way. And I would have preferred watching a movie focused on Sally Hawkins instead of Cate Blanchett so that's why she's a close 3. Lupita won the Oscar but didn't win me over and, well, I hated Lawrence's performance in her film. All in all not a bad year for my most hated category! Things are looking up!

Oscar Winner: Lupita Nyong'o - 12 Years a Slave
My Winner:  Julia Roberts - August: Osage County
June Squibb
Sally Hawkins
Lupita Nyong'o
Jennifer Lawrence

Best Picture 2012

So after finally starting to get caught up with the current awards, I've noticed that there seems to be a lack of diversity for the films among the different acting/picture groups. Watching Supporting Actress and Actor almost finishes up all the different films I need to see. It's like the Academy is not looking at anything else besides the 9 or so films that get nominated for Best Picture. Of course, there are more films nominated instead of the 5 we had for so long, but it just seems all those smaller performances aren't getting seen. I dunno but 2013 gets even worse from what I can tell. I'd have to look at 2014 again but that trend needs to stop. I want more diversity in the number of films that get nominated. Anyway, on to this year's group.

2012 Best Picture

Argo

Argo is a crowdpleaser. Depending on who you ask, that can be a good or bad thing. Usually when it comes to Oscar it's a bad thing, especially if the crowdpleaser is a winner. I'm surprised they haven't actually made or tried to make the actual Argo movie because I'm sure there would be lots of interest, no matter how bad it might be! One of the main reasons I personally think Argo won here, is because it's one of the biggest representations of Hollywood helping out the world. So it winning is basically Hollywood or Oscar patting itself on the back. Let's be for real, Oscar loves rewarding itself, especially lately! So no doubt a movie about Hollywood saving some Americans from Iran in the 80s would get enough votes for Best Picture. Throw in the whole Ben Affleck not being nominated for Best Director controversy and there are plenty of reasons why people wanted Argo to win. Argo is decent at raising the tension for some of it's crucial scenes. The thing is we all know that things came out alright and those little bits of tension aren't enough to sustain the film for me. It's an easily likable crowdpleaser, like I said, but it's a little too safe. There's a couple brief scenes with the Canadian residence housemaid (who is Iranian) or whatever where she lies to the Iranian authorities about there being any other people in the home and you're not sure if she's gonna tell or not. More of those moments that involve the sacrifice of the Iranians to help this escape go down would have been great. Instead we do get a bit of rah rah Americans are great showcase. And while Argo is a satisfying film to watch and isn't a bad choice for a nominee, it just lacks that certain something that makes it a winner. There's a couple other films in this group that are frankly way better than this one. Even just a couple years later, I still don't think it holds up all that well as a winner. To me, it's just an uninspiring pat on the back for Oscar.

Amour

I was dreading having to watch this one again. A 2 plus hour French movie about old people dying - exciting! I know that's simplifying it way too much but honestly that's what sticks out when thinking about having to watch it again. This was the last film I watched prior to the Oscar ceremony that year. I finished it during the second commercial break so that I could say that I'd seen all the nominees prior to the awards being given out. So part of me was wondering if I gave this Palme d'Or winner a legit chance. It was widely praised and will most likely be one of those films on best of all time lists that have a ton of foreign films (which I do like!) you've never seen or heard of, so I should at least give it a real chance. I guess I didn't appreciate it before, but I really quite like the static shots that watch the lives of the characters play out from across the room for a few minutes or so without cutting or moving the camera. It makes the film feel really intimate and like you're a part of these peoples' lives. Plus, it's just nice to watch something that doesn't have a million jump cuts and angles trying to make up for a lack of plot. Amour is very real and awkward at times and I think that's part of the great love many people have for it - it shows life as it is, warts and all. But at times it does feel insincere. The couple seem selfish in their own ways, Georges for not wanting to have his daughter around to see her mother and Anne for giving up on life. It does feel a little on the extremes at times but overall it works. The acting is natural and the leads are definitely compelling. While this style could be cold and clinical it's nice that it manages to include the humane touch, as well. Is it something I want to watch again? No, especially not after a long day at work and this is what is awaiting me. It's a film to see and say you saw and appreciate it.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

This film can be a little tough to follow. I had to read the wikipedia entry to make sense of it and that was while watching it for the second time. This film exploded onto the scene after winning Sundance and just stayed in the collective conscious of the voters for the rest of year - something most Sundance films don't do. Normally they lose steam and fade by the time summer rolls around all the big Hollywood movies start coming out and then we start getting the Oscar films after that. Kudos to Beasts, I guess, but I still don't find what everyone thought was so compelling about it. I know Wallis was well liked but I thought the acting showed just how amateur it actually was. The metaphors and deeper meaning stuff was something that was uninteresting to me. I didn't care about any of that and critics seemed to latch onto it in treating it as something more important than it really was. Overall, I simply found the film to be boring. The first time I was interested because of all the hype and I wanted to see exactly what everyone saw in it to keep it alive through awards season and get it nominated. The second time was even worse because I knew what I was getting myself into. I guess some films just really speak to some people and some films don't. This one certainly doesn't speak to me on any level. The positive is that southern Louisiana does look pretty great and I kinda dig the direction style. It gives an otherwise boring film some energy and does it's best to keep me into it. The nomination is its own reward and this film got plenty of rewards I'm not sure it should have.

Django Unchained

There's an awful lot to like about this Tarantino film, which ticks off all the usual great things about Tarantino films. It has fantastic musical choices. From the theme song which is from another movie but fits well here to all the other music used, it's one of the the typical highlights of Tarantino films. There's always one song that is instantly recognizable as being from his films. His dedication to the old techniques with using film instead of digital and his use of certain aspect ratios really do pay off in the end product. They may not be as noticeable to everyone but they sure do make for a very, very pretty film. Tarantino also is able to capture so many great looking locations, scenes, and compositions that watching his films is a visual treat. Even if you don't like the violence or blood or whatever, you can't say his films don't look good. And as usual, Tarantino gets great performances out of everyone, including all the random cameos in this. You can tell people want to come be a part of his films so they bring their A game and have fun while doing so which translates to the scenes. The writing and dialogue are of course top notch and very fun. He makes some scene crackle with his words and watching them unfold is just a lot of pure cinematic entertainment. He is absolutely an auteur. Where he stumbles, and ultimately where this film fails, is that Django is just way too damn long. It's about 30 minutes too long and unfortunately it seems that auteurs seem to make more and more bloated films as they get more respect and age in years and there is no one to reign them in or to at least say no to them. This film is almost 3 hours long and there's no reason it should be. The ending is so convoluted and tacked on that if you end it much earlier, you might be talking about Tarantino's first Best Picture win. Sadly, we get a film that enjoys the excess which includes a lot of needless shit at the end. There is no doubt if this was better edited and trimmed down, this would possibly be considered his best which would be high praise. Unfortunately we are only left with what could have been for what is a really good film.

Les Miserables

Now this is a pretty good musical, although it does have it's faults. It must be pretty hard to make a movie version of Les Mis because it's so beloved and well known by most people. You have to live up to everyone's expectation of what Les Mis is and ought to be. As much as I didn't like his Best Picture win for The King's Speech, Tom Hooper delivers a pretty good movie here. Hugh Jackman was a great choice as was Samantha Barks. The rest of the cast was alright and did their parts nobly but those two stood out head and shoulders above everyone else. Much was made about how the actors sang live on film instead of recording it later and it getting dubbed in, which is frankly an amazing an admirable thing. That could have been absolutely disastrous. Instead it really works for the movie and we get those raw songs and performances like Jackman's in the beginning of the movie. Much is to be said about capturing the realness of the emotions especially in a musical because it gives it such a genuine quality. There was a lot said also about how Hooper used a lot of extreme close up when the actors were singing. To me, that concept was hit and miss. There are times when it really works and adds to the intensity of the performances and makes the songs hit that much harder. Yet there are other times where it just gets annoying and awkward. I'm just impressed that such an epic musical was done in such a reverential but also original way. That's pretty key to a successful movie and musical. Add something new to Les Mis because we sure have seen a whole bunch of iterations of it through the years. It keeps it fresh and really made for an entertaining watch right to the end, well, mostly to the end. I think that it starts to putter out after the big battle scenes and gets stretched a little thin there. But as a whole, Les Mis is really well done and I can't find much to hate on. I've grown to love musicals more and more as I've grown up thanks to ex-girlfriends and this one ranks right up there for me just based on effort and execution alone.

Life of Pi

Every time I watch Life of Pi, I get so happy and hopeful. It's a very uplifting film and is how a feel good movie should be done. It never talks down to it's viewer and has a nice earnestness to it. The story it tells is quite something. It's fantastical but doesn't ever feel too unbelievable. I think that's due a bit to the acting and the storyteller and Ang Lee's dedication to the whole concept. It's also a very spiritual film. It absolutely talks about a higher power and believing in something. It's message is easy to digest but also not over the top which makes it not annoying. Basically when I watch it I feel better as a person, like I can do anything and help out others. There are other mediums that do the same thing for me like the book Siddhartha, I read it and want to change the world. I think that's why I like the film so much is that it makes me feel so good inside. It also has some absolutely incredible special effects. The tiger is mostly CGI and you cannot tell the difference between a real tiger and the CGI one, it's that good. All the animals and probably most of the ocean scenes are effects but it doesn't detract from the story instead adding to it and making it so much better. The film itself is also buoyed by the one man show of Suraj Sharma. He is amazing and does what many actors can't do - and that's carry a film by themselves. It's sad that he's an Indian kid because he should have been among the leading actor nominees. He was the perfect choice for Pi and really helped elevate the film. Also, I wanted to give a shout out to Irrfan Khan who is the grown up Pi who tells the tale because he is a really talented actor. I just really like him. Anyway, Life of Pi is a great, well done feel good movie that expertly uses CGI to tell a really interesting story.

Lincoln

Lincoln started out making me almost puke in my mouth. It starts off with two black soldiers who are joined by two white soldiers who start reciting the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln himself and I thought for sure we would get some sanctimonious Spielberg bullshit but thankfully that didn't happen. What we get is legitimately one of Spielberg's best works and he's made some great films. It tells of Lincoln's attempt to get the 13th Amendment passed. It's easy for your film to look good when your actor gives one of the best performances I've ever seen. When that man is Lincoln everything else is just relative. This film has so many good cameos and supporting turns. Yeah, Tommy Lee Jones is good but the triplet line of John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, and especially James Spader are fantastic. Spader should be a national treasure but that's a different discussion. Lincoln offers up an intimate look at the President and excels at showing those moments when he's most human: telling a joke, interacting with a citizen, talking to his wife, or getting angry at his Cabinet. Spielberg's success is staying unobtrusive in those moments and not making everything so neatly wrapped up or manipulatively saccharine. He just lets things unfold and allows DDL to carry the scene and film. I also like that Lincoln didn't cover his whole life or whole presidency because that's just too much. Focusing on this one thing with everything else as a backdrop was incredibly smart. It allows for so much more focus and intensity without compromising huge swaths of time. It's a great looking film, with great acting, covering a great man. What more could you ask for? 

Silver Linings Playbook

Just like some of the other films this year, I'm kinda burnt out when it comes to writing about the film itself. Having 3 or 4 acting nominees and writing about all of them can really drain you! I feel like I've got nothing left to say by the time I get to Best Picture. I'm thinking I might keep some of these short for that reason or I'll never finish this year. I never understood the hype this film got and definitely didn't understand all the Oscar love it got with all the nominations. To me, it's just an alright film. I wasn't a big fan of Lawrence or the supporting players, but I did like Cooper. I thought it bringing mental illness into the public eye was a good thing. Though, many criticized it as being too flippant with the subject. I disagree because mental illness films can get bogged down in showing just how crazy people can be and this focused on Cooper trying to overcome his illness in a measured way and dealing with it in an adult way. There were some silly moments that didn't seem to vibe with the rest of the story and the big dance at the end was very anti-climactic and rushed to me. I like to see more mature dramedies like this because that's a very under served genre but I don't think SLP holds up very well under scrutiny. That's why I think it's just alright and not the amazing film people seemed to think it was. Not a film I'll come back to very much or at all.

Zero Dark Thirty

I love watching this film. I mean absolutely love it. Once I start, I can't stop and that's a sign of a great film to me. This is my clear cut winner for this group and with The Master would offer up an awesome 1-2 punch, in either order (my two favorites). It really is hard to believe even just a couple years later that this amazing work of art was beaten by Argo. This film does everything Argo wants and tries to do a million times better. The tension is palpable. The characters, especially Chastain's Maya, are phenomenal. The story is more interesting, though the conceit of Argo is pretty fantastic. The visuals and action and tone and importance are all far beyond anything Argo can muster. Argo won because it's about Hollywood and because everyone wanted Affleck to win after his Directing snub. Part of it too might be that Kathryn Bigelow already had a war movie win Best Picture very recently and the Academy didn't want to go back to that well. ZDT, however, is a way better film overall than The Hurt Locker which unfortunately devolved into a bullshit fantasy of what the writer thought being a soldier was like. This film is a complete film unlike her winner and that was all due to a stroke of luck. Bin Laden was killed during the making of the film or at least right before filming began. So I think that's why the film almost works as two different movies. The first is the hunt for information and the grueling, slow pace at which our top intel people try to find UBL. It's this really jarring and sobering look behind the curtain at just how much work and pain and work and frustration and work and effort goes in to finding UBL and what actually goes on in the intel world. It's not all Jason Bourne type stuff with super satellites and immediate info and pictures and all that. I worked as an intel analyst just like Maya when I was in Afghanistan (obviously nowhere near the same level though) and it's a very unsexy job. Lot's of miscommunication and dead ends and too much information to sift through and no one listening to your ideas and superiors wanting results even though that means a ton of work to be done by a few people. That's part of the reason I love this film so much, is that to me it's an accurate representation of what intel gathering and analyzing is actually like. It's a lot of hard work done by some very dedicated people. That film right there is already compelling enough, even if it ended with Maya not finding UBL and still looking. That dedication and frustration is something easily relatable to, almost universal. The second part is the assault on UBL's compound and makes for some of the best war film action scenes ever. Even if the beginning doesn't much interest you, that last hour is some of the most engrossing cinema I've ever seen. It grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go for an hour and it's completely exhilarating. It introduces a couple even more intriguing characters in the SEAL guys and doesn't skip a beat going from the first part to the second. The two could come off as being very disparate but they work in tandem and tell a story that deserves to be told in that way. The hunt and then the kill. Bigelow makes a very primal film at it's core but also a film that embraces a strong female lead without hitting us over the head that she's a female. There's so many good things I could keep saying about this film but I just want it to be known I love it. This is definitely one of the best American films ever.

 

The Master would have been my winner if I wrote this right around the time of the ceremony. That film was intoxicating to me and still is. It's going to be remembered as one of those great films when we look back in a few years and it makes all these lists and we wonder why the fuck Argo won and this wasn't even nominated. Makes no sense to me, especially with Beasts on this list. But since one of my favorites wasn't even included what should win from this group? That's an easy answer: Zero Dark Thirty. Which after watching it again makes me want to rank above even The Master! I think that's a case of whichever one I've seen last gets the nod. Can't really go wrong with either one, though. From there, Lincoln is an easy second on the strength of DDL's performance alone. Throw in the fact that it's one of Spielberg's best films along with Munich since Saving Private Ryan, well that's a no brainer. Life of Pi is so inspiring and such a wonderful story and a visual treat that it makes for a close third. Then we get into the more flawed films like Les Mis which has some bad singing and goes on a bit too long followed by Django which loses lots of points for it's awful last 30 minutes. Finally we get to the Oscar winner in Argo, which is just meh followed by more meh in SLP followed by a film that's obviously great for critics and best of lists but one I don't want to watch again in Amour followed by the film that doesn't belong Beasts. The top half is a very strong group and if The Master was included this would have been a nice 10 nominees. Alas, it wasn't and this year gets weighed down by the bottom few.

Oscar Winner: Argo
My Winner:  Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Django Unchained
Argo
Silver Linings Playbook
Amour
Beasts of the Southern Wild