Supporting Actress 1999

It feels kinda weird coming back to 1999 after doing a couple of the most current years. It's like I lost my momentum in going backwards and trying to remember the trends and who has been nominated recently has slipped my mind. I'll have to settle in and get back on track starting with this category!

1999 Best Supporting Actress

Angelina Jolie - Girl, Interrupted

This is back when Angelina was the weird goth chick doing a lot of things for shock value and to get attention. Her real life persona matches the character she portrays in this film, Lisa, and it probably helps her performance honestly. It's not too far fetched to see Angelina as Lisa or vice versa so she at least has the believability factor going for her. Lisa is a mentally unstable woman who has been in a psychiatric ward for eight years and is always causing problems and escaping the hospital. You should be able to tell from that brief description that Lisa is pretty wild and she absolutely is. She is the main source of drama for the film because Lisa speaks her mind, antagonizing everyone she meets and trying to corrupt anyone that looks weak to her. It's an easy performance to do because all Angelina has to do is act crazy and there is no taking it too far for this character so Jolie can overact to her heart's content. This is the loud, brash, bombastic performance I would expect from Jolie in a role like this. I can't decide if that's inherently a good or bad thing but what I was expecting was what I got. Angelina was wildly praised and obviously rewarded for this performance but I can't help but wonder if it's because it stands out against the rest of the film or because they were really into her as a celebrity at the time. It's easily the most interesting and compelling of the performances in this category because it is so electric, so maybe that's why it was the winner. I'm on the fence about whether or not I like it, but it's easy to see why it won over the Academy.

Toni Collette - The Sixth Sense

When I was remembering this film and thinking about this performance, I didn't really remember much at all about Collette and what exactly she did. I knew she was Osment's mother but I was trying very hard to remember if she did anything else besides the well known scene in the car. Unfortunately, that's about all she does in The Sixth Sense. She plays the anguished mother role well enough, but there's not much else to the performance. The car scene I mentioned is her Oscar moment, so to speak, but I don't think that one scene is enough to vault her into the Oscar discussion. She was terrific in that scene where Osment finally tells her he sees ghosts and relays the message from Collette's mother to her. It's real emotional work and very touching without being too insincere or hammy. It's a tremendous scene as I've said three times now but I don't think it alone warrants an Oscar nomination. I feel like she was swept in on the strength of The Sixth Sense which really was a cultural phenomenon back then and got a ton of attention and awards play. I know that sometimes these supporting categories have these nominations that piggy back on whatever film is getting the most love at the time of the nominations and usually it's fine and representative of the film as a whole, but you also have Haley Joel Osment nominated, as well. There's not much else I can say about her performance because there's not much else to it, honestly. It's not bad, but I just don't know if it's enough for her to be included here.

Catherine Keener - Being John Malkovich

This is one indescribably interesting film from the depths of the mind of Charlie Kaufman, who is exceedingly brilliant. He creates world's you never knew you wanted to explore. This film takes us into the mind of John Malkovich by way of a forgotten door behind a filing cabinet in an office located on the 7th and a half floor of a building. It get's crazier from there and one of the inhabitants of this world is Catherine Keener's Maxine, an office worker that becomes the love interest of everybody in the film. Maxine is an unfiltered, sexpot who becomes the sexy ingenue of Cusack's character and then his wife and then John Malkovich. During this part of the film, Keener is very one note for much of her performance since all she gets to do is play the bitchy, beautiful woman. Sure, she's interesting because Kaufman's writing is interesting but there's no depth to her character yet. Eventually she involves seemingly everyone in the film with her sex appeal and begins to do a little more heavy lifting in the story. Keener's performance blossoms towards the end, but not like some beautiful flower - more like a flowering weed. She's all over the place and I kinda grew tired of her character's schtick after awhile. Keener is able to show fleeting moments of her ability to do more than just be an asshole hot chick, but they are just fleeting. I can't get to annoyed or upset with the performance because it fits into Kaufman's world remarkably well. We don't really need Keener's character to have a ton of depth but it would have been nice. I feel like this might have been a reward for the whole film because it is such an interesting story.

Samantha Morton - Sweet and Lowdown

Well the Academy certainly has it's types, huh? Morton doesn't speak a word in this performance and though that sounds gimmicky (and it kinda is) it actually works really flipping well here. I had no idea what to expect from this performance and I certainly wasn't expecting a mute role from Morton in this Woody Allen film, but damn does it work! It's a really old school, Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marx Bros-esque type of performance and I mean that with all sincerity and conviction. I read that she didn't know who Harpo was but then studied the movies of the time and man, did she nail the facial expressions and physical comedy elements. The way she can look at a person with her whole body frozen gives off more emotion than some actresses can while overacting. It's also amazing because you actually have to pay attention to her or else you'll miss the comedic effect of what she's doing. In many scenes, Sean Penn dominates because he's talking a mile a minute like any Woody Allen male lead but if you watch Morton she's nailing every comedic timing moment like she was transported from the 1920s. It's a ton of fun to watch and kudos to Allen for dreaming up this character because once the film goes on to the third act and focuses on Uma Thurman, you almost immediately want Morton and her expressions back on the screen. I also like that her silence let's Penn's character keep talking until the truth comes out, which I find especially humorous. I know it's been well documented that Allen creates great female characters for his films and his list of nominated performances bears that out, but I wasn't expecting much and I got a really enjoyable performance out of it.

Chloe Sevigny - Boys Don't Cry

It can be awkward trying to start off a review. Sometimes I'm not sure of what to say or how exactly to say it. Sometimes I have too much to say and I don't know where to start first. And sometimes I just don't feel strongly one way or another about a performance so I don't know how to start it off. This is almost a mixture of all those which I know makes little sense. I liked Sevigny's performance in this film as the love interest of Hilary Swank's Brandon. I found her to be perfectly supporting, playing the supportive girlfriend/lover in a way that didn't make me dislike her at all and made me start to realize, yeah she's a decent person after all. She trots into the film as this edgy, seductive chick who seems really independent and cool and just very sure of herself. Then she catches the eye of Swank and begins to reciprocate the interest. I feel two things about this performance: that it was voted in alongside Swank who was a powerhouse and that Sevigny stands in for the audience as the accepting, loving figure of Brandon. Getting swept in isn't a knock, especially when strong performances carry other supporting roles with them. It catches the eye of the viewer who then notice the others acting in the same space. The moral compass type role also seems to get voted in a lot and that's okay. Sevigny's Lana loves Brandon for who he is as a person and how he makes her feel. That's an important takeaway obviously, and it makes Sevigny's capable performance stand out even more. Even though she's kind of this white trash, trailer park mess she is still able to transcend what is expected of her from society and her surroundings and find the good in a person that the area/people/time find to be disgusting. That's not to inflate how good the performance is or anything, Sevigny is more than fine here, but she doesn't take over any of the scenes, especially with Swank dominating things. She's just a decent pick for a supporting nomination in a film that needs more awareness and a topic that is all the more relevant in today's world. I'm sure this was a bit more of a statement back in 1999 and I'm fine with Sevigny being here.

Hey, a Best Supporting Actress category that doesn't suck! And is actually pretty good, top to bottom! Imagine that! It's always awesome when this category surprises me and I'm glad that this is a very good group of women. I'd say my 5th spot goes to Collette just because there's not enough performance there unfortunately and she would be followed by Keener who just kind of annoyed me at the end of the film even though she wasn't bad at all. Just a preference, really. Sevigny is in the middle spot because she gives a very solid supporting performance that I enjoyed. Now the tough decision for this group was who is my top pick? Angelina has the more showy, loud, brash role and she does a great job with it. Morton has to act, and act convincingly and without overdoing it, in a role that has no dialogue at all. I want to say for the record that I am okay with Jolie's win and I understand why it did win. But I think I'm leaning just a bit towards Morton for doing so well with her mute performance, something I wasn't expecting to like at all. She made it a fun and interesting one, too, so my pick for 1999 is Morton. Maybe after a while I might lean a bit more for Jolie but right now it's Morton. This was a pretty good year.

Oscar Winner: Angelina Jolie - Girl, Interrupted
My Winner:  Samantha Morton - Sweet and Lowdown
Angelina Jolie
Chloe Sevigny
Catherine Keener
Toni Collette

Best Picture 2015

Here we are, finally up to date with Oscar. I've never been more relieved to have caught up because I'm absolutely ready to get back to 1999 and start knocking off all these films and performances that I've stared at for years on my list. This year has started to devolve into controversy, one that I agree with that we need more minorities getting opportunities to give fantastic performances, but I only agree that they should be nominated on merit not just because they are black or it's a black film. Oscar will adapt, though, and this will be a moot point soon hopefully.

2015 Best Picture

Spotlight

The main thing I love about Spotlight (which might be my favorite film of the year) is that it's so straightforward with it's story and that it cuts out any extraneous bullshit. Spotlight is all about the story much like a journalist going after the truth. The direction is mostly unobtrusive and let's the scenes and characters do all the work of selling the story and that's pretty damn refreshing to see in today's movie world where Director's are trying to outdo each other with camera tricks and movements. The only time I noticed the direction was when the film would randomly have the bottom of the picture go black as if narrowing in on the scene. I thought that maybe this was an indicator of a very serious scene and to pay attention. It doesn't happen often but it was noticeable to me, at least. That's probably my only big gripe for this whole film, too. The acting is all superb across the board. It's a true ensemble film and everyone was pitch perfect, which is awesome to see everyone on top of their game at the same time. Hell, I even really liked the score in this one which added to the tone of the film. I also really liked how the film didn't sugarcoat the story at all which is a pretty touchy and controversial subject. Taking on Catholic priest molestation's of young kids and not backing down on what is said and shown is pretty incredible and I'm glad the story wasn't whitewashed. I'm not sure what else to say about Spotlight because it is so straightforward and so good. This is what I hope wins Best Picture and it's one of the three serious contenders so it's got a good shot to win. Spotlight screams Oscar film to me and I'd be so glad if it could be an Oscar winner.

The Big Short

This might very well be your 2015 Best Picture winner and I'm completely okay with that. The Big Short is a really interesting film. It takes on a very heady subject in the 2008 housing market collapse and loans and sub prime mortgages and on and on. That's the kind of stuff that will make anyone's head spin and probably put you to sleep, too. Not exactly exciting stuff. But what's so great about The Big Short is that it takes that subject matter and makes it easily digestible and somewhat fun to learn about and does it all in a very unique and different way. I don't think there's ever been a Best Picture nominee quite like The Big Short and that's a huge compliment for the film. It's a really fresh take on a boring subject told with humor and great acting, you can't beat that. And when I say it's funny, I mean that it's hilarious! There's so much great subtle humor to go along with the funny lines and absurd nature of the subject. Bale and Gosling are on fire in this when it comes to the comedy. Throw in the celebrity cutaways to better explain complex topics and you've got one great comedy going, except it also touches on the dramatic just as well as it does the comedy which makes The Big Short so damn good. I've heard some people say that the film is too glib with the subject and the audience but, no, screw that. It's not a shallow film at all and is certainly not insincere with it's subject. How many people out there would be able to understand and follow the story with all it's economics talk without having those funny asides where things are explained to you? Not too many I'd wager and I'm glad they decided to teach us as well as entertain us. I'd say the film doesn't treat us as stupid, just that we simply don't know and probably didn't care back then. I think all the 4th wall breaking stuff really helps elevate the film and really makes it more enjoyable. The acting is also phenomenal across the board as everyone brings their own little special brand to the big picture. Although I will say that Brad Pitt needs to stop playing the dour, moral compass types in the films he produces. He might be the weak link in the entire film, not that he's awful it's just that I don't if it was a good fit? A minor quibble anyway. I'd really like more films to come out that are exactly like this: funny and smart with great acting. So if The Big Short does indeed win Best Picture, it will be a pretty inspired pick by the Academy.

Bridge of Spies

Honesty time: this is the last review I need to write for 2015 and I'm finding it hard to really care enough to write something good. I was a tiny bit shocked when I saw this announced for Best Picture. I don't see Bridge of Spies as a Best Picture type film. I should clarify that actually I do see it as a Best Picture type film, something that I can see the Academy going for always because it's Spielberg doing a historical drama with Tom Hanks. However, I don't see it as being one of the best of the year. It's good enough, I don't think Spielberg and Hanks will ever make a bad film together but there's nothing about it that really jumps out and grabs me by the throat and makes me want to champion it as some kind of great film. Hanks is fine in his performance, typical Hanks work. Rylance is the best thing about the film and he does give a really good performance. Everything else all told, though, doesn't do that much for me. It looks very gray and depressing which I know invokes the feel of the Cold War but just leaves me cold. The Score is nominated for an Oscar but I prefer Spotlight's to it instead. It's also co-written by the Coen Bros, but even with that fun fact it doesn't seem to help. The ending feels too hokey and should have ended on the bridge instead of the feel good coming home for Hanks thing we got tacked on. That's the difference between this and The Martian where the feel good ending doesn't feel earned or even needed in this film. I know I'm sounding overly negative and want to say that the film is good enough for a watch, it's just for Best Picture I want something more than Spielberg's B or C game. This would be the first film I'd replace with a few others that didn't make it so that should tell you exactly what I think of Bridge of Spies.

Brooklyn

I got into an internet argument about Brooklyn because it's a film that I really enjoy probably more so because of Saoirse Ronan's performance but because I think it's just a pretty well done film all around. The argument was about other people just completely glossing over this film as just a boring, girl grows up, America is awesome, first world problems type of film or even pointing to a brief description of the film and saying it's too basic. You could distill any film down to a description and make it sound boring or basic! I didn't buy any of the arguments being thrown my way for liking this one and I don't agree at all that it's boring. Sure, the idea is one we've seen countless times but I think it differentiates in the execution of the story. My big selling point is Ronan's performance and the fact that it's very much about expectations in this young Irish girl's life instead of being some boilerplate love story. I think Ronan's character fights off expectations for her life throughout the film and that's pretty big for a young woman in the 50s to do things her way. She works hard, educates herself, has big dreams and aspirations, falls in love on her own terms, stands up for herself when others try to shame her. The messages here are pretty strong but they are not spelled out in bright lights, you have to look into Ronan's performance to find them. As for the film itself, I'd say my one issue is with the Italian boy that Ronan gets married to is a bit hokey. The whole dynamic of their relationship is this guy moving way too fast and being a total hopeless romantic. If I could, I would tone down his character and make him a little more believable and less stock 50s character. I actually think that the film is best when it's focused on Ireland and those scenes help make the film way more compelling overall. I also like that we got the more difficult, less emotionally satisfying (for me) ending and that it didn't shy away from keeping true to itself. I can accept that people might not like Brooklyn as much as me, but I can't accept people casually dismissing the film as boring or bad without really giving it a serious watch. This won't win Best Picture but I think it's a worthy inclusion on this list.

Mad Max: Fury Road

How awesome is this choice?! This was what the change to more than five nominees for Best Picture was all about: to get more big blockbuster type movies that both critics and audiences both loved and that made a lot of money. It's almost astounding that the Academy actually did nominate this one and I hope this signals changes in what can make it in this category. Mad Max is a fun movie. There's no other way to put it more simply. How many other Best Picture nominees can be said to be pure, unbridled fun as far as the movie watching experience goes? Very few! What's also great about Mad Max is that it's a pretty terrific film on top of it's subject matter. It would be one thing if a poorly directed, shitty story got in because it was popular, but Mad Max has some great directing from George Miller and a story that, while being kinda bare bones, is endlessly entertaining. It's a film with an incredibly strong female lead performance from Charlize Theron that eschews the CGI wasteland for more practical effects and is just a wild ride from start to finish. Yeah, you can call it a glorified car chase in the desert all you want but there's a whole lot more going on in this film than just a car chase. But it's still a wildly entertaining car chase at that. I think this is the type of action film that more people want to see: one that doesn't insult the audience's intelligence while still being entertaining and richly rewarding. That's part of what makes Mad Max so good is that it just wants to tell it's action story and have as many crazy explosions and stunts as possible all while doing it in a professional way that gives you all the bang for your buck. There's been a lot more written out there that says exactly why Mad Max is so good and worthy of being an Oscar nominated film, all I can say is that watching it is a ton of fun and I'm not made to feel dumber for having enjoyed watching explosions. I will always be okay with a film like this getting nominated as long as it's as expertly crafted and intelligent as Mad Max is, simple as that.

Room

Room is essentially two different films: one where we see the captivity and the conditions the characters are having to endure and how they are able to stay alive and sane throughout the experience, and the other is what it's like after they've escaped and are living in the world again with the reality of their situation weighing down on them. To me, the first part is more thrilling of a watch and kinda tilts the film in favor of the beginning because it's more compelling in execution and story. It's also where Brie Larson does the heavy lifting and really shines in her performance. The room is also made to look so huge like it is a whole word to the two occupants. It feels like there's a lot of space watching it even though it's a claustrophobic environment and you can't wait to escape yourself and get some air. Then at the end when they return to see the room and we go inside and it looks like this tiny, tiny little box that's less a room and more of a prison. That was really effective for me. It helps, too, that you are waiting to see how the escape happens and just how they can get out of the room. It's really terrific and sets the mood so well that when they finally get out, it's almost a let down that we still have all this time left with them in the film. The second part is where Jacob Tremblay really shines and takes over Larson's role, essentially. He adjusts a lot better and is filled with wonderment while she is shell shocked and having to deal with missing so many years of her life.  Tremblay didn't know what he was missing and Larson did, which is the big difference. I also think that the focus on them adjusting back into real life is not as compelling but that could be because the story uses most of it's energy in the first half. The acting and story are mostly top notch and it's nice to see an indie do so well, too. It won't win Best Picture but it is a pretty good film.

The Martian

There's a whole lot to like about The Martian. I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record but it's a smart, funny film that has great ensemble acting (even if Damon does dominate) in a year that seems to be full of those types of films. Just like what everyone liked about the book, I love that the science in this film is actually legit and knowing that what was happening on film could potentially happen in real life made The Martian a lot more enjoyable. It's funny how if the science in sci-fi films is real that we like it more than other fantastical sci-fi films. I also like that we are getting more and more hyper realistic science fiction films like Gravity and Interstellar coming out as I prefer them to say an Armageddon or something. The film survives on Damon's charm which is probably what got him a Best Actor nomination since his character is so likable. Without Damon, I think the film might sink because you need someone capable in his role to carry out all the things necessary for him to get back home. If you don't believe in Damon, I'm not sure you can believe in the film as a whole. The direction is a bit pedestrian but that doesn't matter all that much as the story comes first and the story is very good. As I said above, the supporting acting is also very good from a wide variety of actors and actresses of all colors. This was truly a global film and I wish that could have been emphasized more. Maybe the cynic in me would have preferred a less feel good ending but I'm okay with it for the most part. If Damon were to stay stuck on Mars maybe the film would have a different feel to it, one that might even be more powerful but him coming home is more than okay honestly. Sometimes it's nice to just have those feel good moments in film. The Martian is a thoroughly enjoyable genre film that defies expectations and gives us a truly great film watching experience.

The Revenant

This was at some points, your front runner for Best Picture, though it has been eclipsed as of right now. However, I wouldn't be totally surprised if it does indeed end up winning because it is truly a tremendous feat of filmmaking and a really great film. Whenever a film does make it to the top of the heap like this one, there's always lots of people who then turn on it and start picking at what they don't like about it and how it doesn't deserve to win because of these small, stupid "issues" that people come up with out of nowhere. One of the big ones I've read about is how there's not much to the story (funny how that comes up a lot this year) and that it's a very sparse film as far as story goes. Well, that's absurd to me. As if you need a large, complex plot to be considered good. There's nothing wrong with the story The Revenant tells. It's a film about survival and revenge and it tells a pretty great story to me about those subjects. It has world class acting from Leo who hopefully gets his Oscar because he really does deserve it. The direction is so good and interesting and the cinematography is flat out gorgeous. The shots of the wilderness are just perfectly sublime. That was another issue that people had were the lingering nature shots and that the film could have been shorter. But I feel like nature and the wilderness setting was very much a character in The Revenant. Leo was battling not only his injuries and the man who left him to die, but nature as well and Innaritu giving the setting it's due didn't feel pretentious or too much to me. This film could have failed at so many points but it succeeds because of the director and the actors working perfectly together. It runs kind of long but I could have sat and watched 5 more hours of this and be entertained. The Revenant is an intense, epic, glorious film that would be a very good pick for Best Picture.


When you look at this year, it's pretty fantastic going right down the list. Of course, the Academy gets dinged for not including some films but what they did include is a pretty good lineup. Even still, with two empty spots sitting there, there is no reason Sicario or Straight Outta Compton didn't make the list. I think maybe if it weren't the whole crazy preferential balloting only nominate 5 that the Academy does, you'd see those two on it or at least a couple other films making it on. My favorite is Spotlight followed ever so closely by The Revenant and The Big Short. Those are easily the top 3. Next after a little gap is Mad Max, followed closely by Brooklyn and The Martian and Room. Coming in last would be Bridge of Spies. That top 7, though, is all very close to one another. I think this is a pretty strong year, even with all the controversy.

Oscar Winner: Spotlight
My Winner:  Spotlight
The Revenant
The Big Short
Mad Max: Fury Road
Brooklyn
The Martian
Room
Bridge of Spies

Leading Actor 2015

Not much surprise here and that's okay. Honestly, I just wanna get these posted ASAP because I'm itching to start 1999 after such a long break.

2015 Best Actor

Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant

Leo finally gets his Oscar. At least, that's how it's looking over a month before the actual ceremony. I hope he wins just so all the Leo Oscar memes can finally die down. He also deserves to win, which is the best part about all of this. It's not a pity Oscar or a make up Oscar or a veteran Oscar, it's a deserved Oscar. No one can accuse Leo of not taking on challenging roles because from all accounts this was a very tough challenge for him and everyone working on the film. There's been much talk about how he went fully into this role by actually crawling into a horse (I think) carcass, eating a raw animal liver and a raw fish, crawling through snow and icy water in frigid temperatures. None of it is just for show either. It all adds to the desperation and the survival experience of Hugh Glass. This authenticity shows just how insane and unlikely the survival was. Leo gives a very physical performance, one that's been lambasted for being a lot of grunts, groans, and moans but that's unfair. There's plenty of good performances that are light on actual speaking. Where I think Leo succeeds is in making us believe he is really hurt and in pain and going through all these awful conditions and situations. I mean, just take a look at the bear attack scene as to an example of Leo's powerhouse acting ability. The bear is CGI (and very well done) yet Leo makes it look like he's fighting off a real bear and fighting for his life. He excels at that kind of stuff throughout the film. There's a moment where he's hiding from the natives under a rocky overhang while submerged in freezing water. He's trying to not be seen yet he's also gravely wounded and in obvious peril, yet when he senses he's been spotted the look of sheer terror and adrenaline on his face is something that can't really be taught. It's also what I point to when people say Leo didn't do all that much. Bullshit he didn't. Try and scream and fight an imaginary bear off in terror and not look like a complete buffoon. Try and keep acting while submerged in freezing water. That's why Leo is one of the best actors working today. It also shows that he's a varied actor that can do as much with little dialogue as he can with a Scorsese role. I think this is everyone's clear cut favorite, including mine, and I really hope he gets that Oscar.

Bryan Cranston - Trumbo

I have no idea why this was the hardest review for me to write. I literally thought about it for a few days which doesn't seem like much but every other nominee came very easy to write for me. I feel like I should be honest from the beginning because I really liked Cranston's performance here. It and the character and the film hit all my sweet spots. I like biopics of influential Hollywood screen writers who were part of the Blacklist, who wrote great films, one of my favorite books, and who had an overall story arc that was very enjoyable. I legit like old Hollywood, especially when it's portrayed like this. There might be a little bias here but I also feel like Cranston was able to inhabit the soul of Trumbo and bring him back to life for this film. The whole McCarthyism era is a huge bullshit time in American history and the fact that people were killed, imprisoned, and blacklisted over flimsy accusations is complete bullshit. This country did nothing to step up and shut down the hateful vitriol being spewed by the Republicans at the time and I can't believe things were able to get so messed up. Cranston is a great actor as evidenced by his Breaking Bad awards and he is up to the role here in Trumbo. It does take him a while to get really comfortable with Trumbo the character without turning it into a joke. But Cranston quickly figures everything out and hits his stride by legitimately delivering a performance that needs to eschew the boring biopic in favor of the real portrayal of a Hollywood legend. That's exactly what Cranston achieves eventually. You feel his rage at being blacklisted, the satisfaction of resurrecting a B movie script, the honesty of loving his family, his dedication to his craft even if they weren't Oscar related, his sheer determination to keep writing forevermore. It's what he did best and Cranston created a great character that expressed everything involved with that lifestyle. Cranston is a great and fun Trumbo. It's a performance that makes me smile and nod in sympathy.

Matt Damon - The Martian

Matt Damon in spaaaaaace! That is essentially what this role is and how it is approached by Damon. Matt Damon is the quintessential every man. Put him in a role and you know exactly what you're going to get. He brings his good guy charm even if he plays a villain or other type of role and is always relatable no matter what. That's the strength of Damon's acting and it's why he is so bankable and likable. I could never see Damon going method and gaining a bunch of weight or losing a bunch of weight or playing a character that is totally out of our perceived comfort zone of him. However, the Matt Damon we know and love fits The Martian perfectly and the character of Mark Watney could be called Matt Damon and we wouldn't bat an eye. I think Damon succeeds in this role because this is everything we expect from his performances: the light hearted comedy, the action packed physicality, the moments of pure determinism, and satisfying character arcs. Everyone riffed on The Martian winning Best Comedy at the Golden Globes and obviously it's not so much a comedy as a film with comedic parts but it is at times very funny because of Damon's upbeat persona coping with his situation by rattling off jokes. It's also a very science heavy film and Damon is convincing as a botanist and an astronaut. It's easy to root for Damon to survive and succeed because we've been doing it in films for years and this is no different. I think he got a nomination simply because he's a good actor who did solid work here for a well liked film that made money. That may be a very simplistic view of why he was nominated but I think it's pretty hard to argue otherwise. Damon does carry the film, since he's the only one trapped on Mars, but we do get lots and lots of supporting characters thrown into the mix as well. That means it's not Damon's sole responsibility to make sure the film doesn't fail. If it was Damon onscreen the entire time, maybe the schtick would wane a bit as it stands I didn't tire of Damon in this film. Is this the Best performance of the bunch? I don't think so, but I'm not going to complain about it being among this group.

Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs

It is good to see Fassbender back among the nominees , especially for Best Actor this time. He has had some very worthy performances go overlooked in the past so it's great to see him at least get rewarded with a nomination. Fassbender plays Steve Jobs and well, we all know who he is/was. This rendition of Jobs is a loose interpretation of the man that doesn't quite feel like the real portrait of the man. Maybe that's by design and how Aaron Sorkin wanted his Steve Jobs to come across or maybe a stylistic choice by Fassbender but it doesn't ring as very authentic. That's not a knock on Fassbender who delivers a pretty mesmerizing performance. It's just that this Jobs is kind of a badass who trends more towards being a kind of cool, suave asshole instead of this uber nerd who is ruthless but also a goober. I'm not sure Fassbender is capable of playing someone that is a so-called nerdy type so maybe he defaults to what he does best. We get a slicker version of Jobs than I think is actually warranted which I think hurts the overall feel of his character. When the people around him are pointing out ways that he's being a douchebag, like say when he denies his daughter is actually his, you end up rooting on the side of Jobs instead of his daughter because Fassbender and the character are so magnetic and charismatic. Seeing Jobs in action is kind of fun as well, knowing this man helped change the world for better or worse.There's moments where Fassbender starts putting little plans together in his hand and it becomes some terrific acting. That's the big plus that Steve Jobs has going for it is Fassbender's acting, and to a lesser extent the supporting acting, too. But I'd say even given Fassbender's interpretation of Jobs, this is a very strong Fassbender performance. It might feel a little off, but I'm glad it's on here.

Eddie Redmayne - The Danish Girl

Redmayne is back with some more 100% pure Oscar bait. This time ol' Redmayne portrays a Danish artist who awakens his inner woman after dabbling in some dress up for fun. It snowballs into a desire to detach his male form and to possibly transplant a uterus to have a baby and become a complete woman. That description makes it sound absolutely ludicrous but the film itself is not as absurd, though it still can be at times. Anyway, I'm finding out more and more that what I dislike about Redmayne's performance is his inclination for whispering his lines as if it adds some kind of dramatic tension to his scenes and lines. It annoys the crap out of me and is present in his win last year which kinda made sense with Hawking losing his ability to speak but showed up in Jupiter Ascending where he just sounded so comically awful. He continues that trend here where his character is I guess a bit of a shy artist and then uses it mostly to sound more feminine and passable. It's irritating to say the least. There's not much to the male part of his character who we see is a successful artist that likes to bone his extremely attractive wife with some unusual sexual proclivities. He starts getting off on dressing in his wife's clothes and it goes from there. Luckily Redmayne is already a very thin man and very angular in his looks because he's able to not look so out of place as a woman though I wouldn't say he's attractive by any means. Again, I don't know if there's a ton of depth to his performance here as the aesthetic is what seems to take precedence. He/She is tortured with his feelings of wanting to become a woman and alienating his wife who would rather he not but a lot of that subtext is glossed over at the end in favor of showing his transition at the beginning. He plays his woman very demure in public yet flaunts it in private and it seems to treat this transgender component with a superficial idea instead of getting to the true heart and soul of why he transitions other than it being sexual. To me, Redmayne is much more of a physical actor obsessed with the appearance of acting rather than letting his characters come out in a natural way. He is the definition of style over substance.


Another strong list if you look at the names only, but of course when you look deeper into the performances you start to see it's a very thin group. I'm really hoping the Academy has got it's Redmayne love out of it's system because I'd rather a deserving actor get the nod instead another one of his shallow performances. Fassbender makes an interesting Jobs but it's the interpretation that feels out of place when you think about the actual Jobs. I like Fassbender in this performance but as far as in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's near the best. Damon is the safe Academy choice. I'm not upset with it being on the list but if he were replace by anyone else, I wouldn't be vocal about a snub or anything. Cranston is really just my own personal feelings coming out because I think most would put this at 3 or 4 on this list. I enjoyed the hell out of it, though. And of course Leo is winning for a pretty damn great performance so hopefully the Academy doesn't screw that up. I'm already eager for what kind of performances we'll get for next year.

Oscar Winner: Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant
My Winner:  Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant
Bryan Cranston
Matt Damon
Michael Fassbender
Eddie Redmayne

Leading Actress 2015

I found that writing down all of these reviews has been way easier for me than going through some of the later years. I think that's because the race is still on going and I've read so many articles and comments on who would get nominated and now who should win. It's easy to build up an opinion to be able to converse with others online which in turn makes it easier to write everything down because it's swirling over and over in my head so I'm able to make sense of it quicker and write these reviews quicker instead of taking weeks and months. It was also easier because I didn't stick to just one film and do all the nominations for it then move on like I normally do. I finished Best Supporting Actress almost in a day or so because it was easy to write about. If I could do it this fast every year, I'd be in the 60s by December! Although the slow and steady thing isn't too bad. This category is already locked in for Larson, so you got some rambling instead.

2015 Best Actress

Brie Larson - Room

This is your front runner and presumptive winner. I'd be shocked, and so would the Oscar blog world, if she doesn't win. From what I've read, she's really campaigning hard in Hollywood which always rubs me the wrong way like with Redmayne last year. I'm also wavering on how I feel about Larson's performance exactly. Everyone is saying how incredible and wonderful and moving it is and I agree that large parts of it are exactly that. But there's also some parts that feel cliche or at least not as amazing as the rest of her performance. I was really hoping Larson would come out as my easy pick for a winner but I have to say I wasn't bowled over like I hear everyone else saying they were. That makes me question whether I know what the hell I'm talking about and if it's okay to think it's good, but... This is a tale of two films almost. The first half is dedicated to showing Ma and Jack living in their tiny Room together. This is where Larson excels at playing the protective mother explaining the world to her son the best she can since he's never seen the outside of the room. She's loving and nurturing in a place where it would seem impossible for those things to exist. She's mature beyond her years and Larson portrays that aspect impressively. Ma also remains vigilant, hiding Jack away from their captor and keeping her wits about her to devise an escape plan. These are the parts that Larson is absolutely Best Actress worthy. Her chemistry or motherly instincts towards Jack are authentic and really something to watch just how they interact. The first half is tense because you are wondering who the captor is, how she got there, how will they escape, and tons of other questions and thoughts running through your mind. Then they are freed and the film slows way down and we start getting into the more cliche, expected beats of this kind of story. You think Larson might be able to adjust back to normal life alright and that Jack will have a big issue, but the opposite is true. That's where the performance starts to lose steam for me as  as the story lets Larson down big time. What made her performance so special in the first half is gone from the second half though it is still an obviously good portrayal. I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for from Larson in the second half but it just doesn't quite live up to her acting in the Room and I really wish it did. That said, Larson is pretty great here and would be a fine winner.

Cate Blanchett - Carol

I think I'm starting to get annoyed by Cate Blanchett nominations now, which isn't a good thing. She's become one of those actresses that the Academy defaults to because they are afraid to go out of their comfort zone and nominate something off the wall or different. So when she has a decent enough performance, she gets all these rave reviews because she's Cate Blanchett and everyone wants to be first on the hype train. It's like some critics and bloggers don't want to look wrong or dumb or whatever when they stand up and say this performance isn't all that great and certainly not Oscar worthy. I think going down the list of names here and you see a Cate Blanchett you go well, yeah okay and go to the next name. Meaning she always looks like she belongs but it might not always be the best pick. Blanchett as the titular Carol is a bored housewife who has flings with other women while living a rather posh lifestyle. It's honestly a role I could see Blanchett doing in her sleep, which is a credit to Blanchett but also means she's not really taking any risks or pushing herself as an actress with this one. It feels very similar to her turn in Notes on a Scandal (or even Blue Jasmine, but without the neurosis), though I think that performance had a lot more depth than this one does. That's one of the main things about this performance is we never really get to know who Carol is and I don't even know if we ever found out why her and her husband were having issues, I just assumed it was because of her flings. It's a very superficial performance, one where Blanchett flutters in acting all dominant and sexual which is taboo for the 50s and that's about all there is to it. We get momentary glimpses of the heartbreak going on beneath her veneer of sophistication and all the domestic issues she's dealing with but those don't last very long before she's back to being provocative. Carol could have been so much more than it was, mainly due to performances like this that just felt way too constricted. I expect better from Blanchett.

Jennifer Lawrence - Joy

Just like with Cate Blanchett, I'm getting more and more annoyed by Lawrence's constant nominations. This is her 4th Oscar nomination and she's only 25 years old! That's a record and it's a wholly undeserved one. She has no business being nominated for Joy, even if she is the best part of an otherwise awful, tone deaf movie. And she probably shouldn't have been nominated for American Hustle, either. The common denominator between those two performances is the fact that she's way too young to be playing what should be middle aged women roles. She is not at all believable as a mother in this movie and she feels more like a big sister and that kills all of the scenes where she's supposed to be trying her hardest for her kids and family and all that junk. It rings hollow and falls flat which is unfortunate because that's a big part of the movie is her making it as a single mother. So take that part out of the equation and what are we left with exactly? A movie that has some very odd, mistimed, and downright awful "humor" that's about Lawrence's character inventing a self wringing mop and powering through until it sells a ton on TV. Joy is essentially just an acting showcase for Lawrence, who has to run the gamut of emotions and situations and one dimensional characters in her way. I'm sure any actress would have loved a movie like this to show off their range and Lawrence is up to the task, sure, but she can't save the movie and her one woman show begins to wear thin after awhile. Lawrence needs to get away from doing David O. Russell movies and start working with other directors on non franchise films so that she can really showcase her abilities because she's being wasted in these awful roles and movies of his.

Charlotte Rampling - 45 Years

Some might see this nomination as a surprise but that's only because they weren't paying attention and probably had never heard of the film at all. This is a performance where on first watch you might not fully appreciate all that's going on with Rampling's performance. It's a quiet role, one that doesn't draw much attention to itself. It's also a devastating role with so much subtext and nuance that you really have to be paying attention and really like these realistic character dramas. I like the idea of these types of films and sometimes they just instantly click with me like In the Bedroom, but sometimes I struggle to find the beauty in them like Amour. I was initially on the fence about Rampling. I didn't see what was so amazing and highly praised about her work here. The second viewing allowed me to better understand what she was going through and how she was reacting to it all, which a lot of it is hidden inside Rampling. I still am not totally in love with the performance but I'm also not easily dismissing it, either. I think it's a character that not a lot of other actresses could pull off as well as Rampling does. I think it's a solid acting job that will most likely go overlooked unless someone wants to go on an Oscar nomination binge, unfortunately. To at least tell what the role is about: Rampling is a woman who is getting ready to celebrate her 45th wedding anniversary with her husband who finds out a former lover from before they met who was killed in an accident has been find on a mountain. That news sends the husband into a state of shock and mourning and makes Rampling question more and more as the film goes on just if she was her husband's true love. As you can tell it's an emotionally heavy film that internalizes a lot of the reactions and thoughts of the characters and we are left as an audience to try and make sense of what is going on. Rampling's performance obviously hits its peak right towards the end as you'd expect and it is very draining. Some may not connect with her but it's hard not to at least empathize with her. It's a performance that was a lot better the second time around for me.

Saoirse Ronan - Brooklyn

This was one of the last films I watched before the nominations came out pretty much because the story of Irish immigrant girl in America finding love didn't exactly scream great film to me. I should have known not to be so stupid because I really, really liked the film but I really, really liked Ronan's performance more. I mean she really does a tremendous job carrying this entire film on the strength of her acting. She makes a film that might get overlooked into a must watch. She makes a little film about Irish immigration and love into a substantial film nominated for Best Picture. She's that good to me. There's not even any one thing about her performance, it's just solid from start to finish. There's also nothing flashy or showy about it, she just steadfastly acts circles around everyone else in this category. I like that her character stays the same person yet still grows at the same time. She's kind of a no-nonsense person and Ronan portrays that in the same no frills type way. I like her personality the most. When the other girls tease her at the boarding house, she let's it roll off her back and furthers her education while working and finding a boy. Though the romance part in the US comes off as hokey, that's not because of Ronan at all, who doesn't succumb to any schmaltzy, melodramatic, or chintzy inclinations. She plays it natural and helps buoy the worst part of the film. It gets even better when she goes back to visit Ireland and is a little more mature and stands up for herself at the end with fiery conviction that may not be personally satisfying to me, but fits the character well. Ronan would be my pick for Best Actress but I know that's not going to happen, unfortunately. In place of that, I urge everyone to watch Brooklyn for her performance alone.


Well, the top three this year (by my standards) is a pretty strong little group. My winner would be Ronan because she carries her film and is great from start to finish without anything to pick apart. I hope that she can one day get a win because she's a solid young actress. Larson will be your winner but is my second because I think once she leaves captivity, the performance sags a bit and doesn't continue to wow. Rampling is quietly deceptive third that sneaks up on you before you realize you actually kinda like it. People won't have seen this but they should, if at least to see what they think for themselves. Blanchett coasts in a role she could do in her sleep that probably shouldn't be nominated and Lawrence just fails to deliver even though she is the best thing in a terrible movie. Those last two are a wider gap from the other three, yet I know some lists will put them towards the top because people can't see past the names. Not me, though.

Oscar Winner: Brie Larson - Room
My Winner:   Saoirse Ronan - Brooklyn
Brie Larson
Charlotte Rampling
Cate Blanchett
Jennifer Lawrence

Supporting Actor 2015

When the announcement was read, I thought it was somewhat surprising that Idris Elba wasn't on and that they went with Tom Hardy instead but I think you can chalk that up to the Academy not embracing a Netflix film so easily and Hardy was in two Best Picture films another film with a dual lead role. Del Toro not getting in was also unfortunate but it is what it is.

2015 Best Supporting Actor

Mark Rylance - Bridge of Spies

I'll be honest, my first time watching this film I had to ask who was Mark Rylance when it was over because I knew he was kind of the front runner for Best Supporting Actor and because I had no clue who he was. When I found out it was the spy who was the basis for the whole film I about laughed. I knew Rylance was a hugely respected British stage actor and yet I couldn't deduce this kinda Irish/British inflected Russian spy was the guy I should have been paying attention to! I think that should count for something for Mark Rylance but I'm not sure what. His performance is one that is easy to overlook but hard to forget. That's cliche as hell but it really applies because he blends into his character so well. Knowing now that he is the Russian spy, I thought he gave a very measured performance. His role is pivotal, but also quiet in terms of his character doesn't actually do all that much. He's caught at the very start of the film and from there is basically just sitting in court and jail before getting released. So there's an opportunity for this to be a boring performance, because what can you do with something like that? Well, Rylance showed us what you can do. I think his stage acting came in very handy here since you don't have the luxury of different angles to better show off your acting. You are presented as is on stage and Rylance applies that here. He gets a lot of mileage out of just a look or a the way he says something. He has commanding presence when on screen and also kind of calms the action down and his delivery of his lines is pitch perfect. It's a performance that could easily be overacted or worse - made into a stock character. Rylance is the best thing to me about Bridge of Spies and that's due in large part to his acting ability. It won't surprise me at all if he ends up winning come Oscar night and I think he'd be a pretty worthy winner.

Sylvestor Stallone - Creed

Here's something I didn't know: Stallone's Golden Globe win for this role was his first - and only - personal win for his entire career. I always thought he won for Rocky, but that was Best Picture. I was sure he had won somewhere along the line, but nope, he has not. So it makes sense that he's getting the standing ovations and all the love for this nomination here. I think this will win. I also think Rylance can take it but as of now, Stallone looks like the veteran, feel good win. I can't say I'm well versed in the Rocky world. I've seen the first couple and that's it. But what I saw from Creed and what I expected were two totally different things. I wasn't expecting much, yet it might be one of my favorites of the year. Michael B. Jordan deserved some Best Actor love for injecting some much needed life and charisma into a dying franchise. Stallone, too, was reinvigorated. Jordan's character finds Rocky in hopes of getting trained and then they train and fight. It's a reverb of the original film but Stallone hits all the notes he should as the trainer. I read somewhere that Stallone was the same age as Burgess Meredith and Jordan was the same age as Stallone in the first one. That seems like karma or something divine because they both seem to channel their predecessor. Rocky is so human and that's in big part to Stallone's acting, delicate as ever in not wanting to take over the film. Jordan also coaxes out the best from Stallone, never settling for a shitty remake. I think both the actor and director helped elevate and rejuvenate Stallone's performance because without them he'd be ridiculous. Even without the cliche cancer story, Rocky feels refreshed and I believe that's why we get such a good performance from Stallone.

Christian Bale - The Big Short

Just like with Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight (you can tell which one I wrote first), Bale's nomination is for the entire ensemble of The Big Short. Honestly, I feel any of the other actors would have been just as deserving to be included here but I do think one nominee from that film was plenty enough. Bale as Michael Burry, a man who sees the housing bubble coming and bets against it, is probably one of the better entries from the ensemble. Burry is a very quirky character and acts almost as a functioning loner, content to do his own thing, his own way. He also stands alone in the film, not really interacting with the other guys as far as I can remember, which seems to highlight how he was able to see the bubble before anyone else. Bale's performance as Burry is also a take it or leave it type of thing. It's like he doesn't care if you see him or how you see him, he just does his own thing - as if the cameras weren't there. The personal tics that Burry displays don't seem as noticeable but when all put together and thought about bring a lot to the character. Bale is constantly drumming and is standoffish to people, busts out with a random smile or laugh and it all works for the character. There's a weird sincerity to all of these eccentricities and tics It feels like a very lived in role and that's obviously something you can say about most of Bale's performances. He is Michael Burry. It's also a very comedic performance without being overtly funny, it has a subtle humor to it that I found very satisfying. I feel it fit the tone of the film very well, especially in combination with all the other actors, and really made what could have been a boring subject into something so irreverently compelling.

Tom Hardy - The Revenant

As noted above, Hardy was in two Best Picture nominees (this and Mad Max) and had a lead dual role in Legend, so it's not surprising to see him on this list even if he wasn't everyone's 5th choice. I do think it's a reward for his year and they probably just wanted to finally reward him as an actor who has been pumping out interesting roles for a few years now. I'm not a big fan of this performance even though I was hoping it would be really great. There are a lot of people online that seem to love this one, though, and I can't figure out why except for fanboyism. Unfortunately, Hardy does his whole mumbly speech thing where you have a difficult time understanding him and I have no idea why that's become part of his repertoire. It doesn't make for better acting and annoys me that I have to focus so intently on just him to figure out what he's saying so I don't miss something important. Another part of the problem is that Hardy really acts out of sync with everyone else in this film. He stands out in a bad way for me and every time he's on screen I was taken out of the film. I felt he was too intense if that's even possible? It's like big acting of sorts and Hardy doesn't exactly integrate into the story and scenes like everyone else. Everyone else is trying to act, while Hardy is trying to take over the scene. I don't think Hardy is bad, per se, but I wish he would have toned it down and let the film speak for itself. He does have some interesting moments like when he's telling stories about his life, which injects some energy into the film. But all in all I wasn't as impressed with Hardy in this role and I really wish I was. Maybe a toned down Hardy would have been a better fit.

Mark Ruffalo - Spotlight

This was the flashiest role and performance of the whole film and it's not even really all that flashy. I think the reason Ruffalo sticks out is because, well, the Academy has nominated him a couple times in the past. But also because his role is the one that has the most obvious acting. His voice is affected and it disturbed me a little bit. It's a very put on voice and coming from his Foxcatcher nomination is very jarring. It just doesn't sound like Ruffalo is your first thought. But once you settle in and realize this is a straightforward, no bullshit film you begin to focus on the Spotlight team who are out there doing the work. Ruffalo sticks out the most, besides Keaton (who deserved a nomination and would be my winner but I guess the Academy hates him or something), and provides the showiest of non-showy roles. His investigative journalist is super eager and jumps on every lead and shows off just how talented the Spotlight team is. He's using his brain to dig up key information and he's a steadfast journalist. There's a brief point where we see 9/11 happen from the newsroom and find out that Ruffalo's character is already en route to Florida to follow up on the flight school narrative we heard ad nauseum in the beginning of that tragedy. He comes home early to tend to the priest matter and really makes for some compelling and not at all manufactured drama. Like his coming home early doesn't feel contrived or story driven. It feels natural to what the Spotlight team does and it feels like the next step in a bunch of plodding steps. As I said, Ruffalo gets the showiest moment in the entire film when he explodes at Keaton for not going to press sooner. It's a very organic and natural moment but one that highlights why Ruffalo is so good. Once his weird voice wears off, you realize that he IS an investigative journalist. There's no extraneous bullshit, just a guy going about his job to the best of his ability. I see this as the representative of the men of Spotlight, because Keaton should be here and John Slattery, Liev Schreiber, Brian d'Arcy James, and Stanley Tucci all deserve recognition. I get that this is most likely an ensemble nomination but Ruffalo is probably the most likable of the bunch. One day Ruffalo will win one, but he'll have to be content with the nomination here and be glad (or maybe not) that it didn't go to Keaton.


An interesting group for sure, but I don't think for the right reasons. As I'm writing this right now, I don't know why I'd rather want to win: Stallone or Rylance. I think I'd give the win to Stallone for playing Rocky as a nod to his character lasting and being an influential part of cinema. Rylance would be a fine, if unremarkable, winner which sounds like a slight but isn't. Then you have two nominees that are representatives of their films more than anything, though they both give pretty good performances. I'd edge Bale over Ruffalo just because I think Keaton would have been a better choice. Hardy is last because I just didn't think he fit all that well in his role for whatever reason. On paper it looks pretty strong but when you really sit down and think about it I don't think it's as strong at first sight. I think I may have to stew on this one for a while before I really make sense of it.

Oscar Winner: Mark Rylance - Bridge of Spies
My Winner:  Sylvester Stallone - Creed
Mark Rylance
Christian Bale
Mark Ruffalo
Tom Hardy

Supporting Actress 2015

I think I've said it before but I always write this category first, so I go backwards to Best Picture so it's in order on the blog. So this is my first taste of 2015's nominations which literally just came out yesterday as I write this right now. This is basically my immediate reactions to the nominations since I finished watching all the films the day before nomination day. I'll revisit some of the films to get a better grasp on my thoughts but I'd say a lot of them are just going to be what I thought from my first watch. It's still all so very fresh so might as well get it out into the blog! This actually is a lot of fun because it's like I'm one of the first to respond in the blogosphere, even if I'm shouting into a void.

2015 Best Supporting Actress

Alicia Vikander - The Danish Girl

This was a breakout year for Vikander, who appeared in a few films this year and no doubt got attention based on her ability as much as her frequency. There was talk she could be one of the very few double nominees with her Ex Machina performance and that would have been quite impressive since she's still fairly young and new to Hollywood. While watching her in this film, the very first thing I noticed was how vibrant and energetic and refreshing her performance and character were. Certainly it had that artistic, free spirited feel since that was what her character was essentially, a painter who was enjoying life and love. It was refreshing because you expect a period piece drama about sexual identity and one's place in the world to be real stuffy, yet here was Vikander livening up every scene she was in during the early part of the film. I thought for sure she was going to run away with being my choice for the winner but then the film happened. It got in the way of Vikander and became all about Redmayne and turned a lively artist into a scowling, joyless, worrier. Yes, she was losing her husband and lover to his identity crisis but the film did an abrupt 180 and completely changed her character on a dime. To me, it felt too quick of a change and too harsh of a change, at that. I can understand your husband wanting to become a woman would be jarring for anyone but it didn't quite match up with the earlier version of Vikander's character. Maybe I expected too much out of the character from the beginning that it couldn't live up to my own hype but I was really disappointed they just made what was a fierce female role into this cliche, sad about love, kinda mess of a woman. Vikander did well with what she was given and she earned the nomination on the strength of all her other performances combined so while this may not be her best representation, I'm glad she was nominated. Oh, and this is basically category fraud like Mara. Vikander is without a doubt the lead in The Danish Girl. Would have much rather seen her turn in Ex Machina here.

Rooney Mara - Carol

This is category fraud straight up. You could argue that Mara is co-lead with Blanchett but the whole film is about Mara and her search for what makes her happy! Blanchett is better suited as the Supporting nomination. I'll never get over category fraud and how the Academy routinely let's it happen. Watch Carol and tell me Mara is Supporting. There's nothing Supporting about it! I actually somewhat like Mara in this film, even if it is ultimately about nothing. She's a shopgirl at a department store who finds an older, wealthier Blanchett intriguing and sexy. It snowballs from there and they get together a lot and Blanchett is all like whatever, I'm an adult and like women but I'm also divorcing my husband because I'm not sure? Point is Blanchett seems to swoop in and then wine, dine and 69 these girls like Mara to get back at her husband or at least to exert her wealth and power. Mara's character falls for it because she is young and hot and likes the attention and scandal of it. Mara plays her Therese (pronounced Terez, mind you) like a young, hot, curious gal who is figuring out who she is and what she likes and is intrigued by the fanciful instead of her lame station in life. She's enamored by Carol and can afford to give up everything in her life to ride off to a motel and get hurt. Because she is so young she rebounds almost immediately and the whole thing just feels like a waste of time or like a notch on someone's bed post. Mara is quite good as Therese and plays up the naivete of her character very well. Her performance is almost like a 1950s city gal. Like a Woody Allen girl or a Noah Baumbach girl or a random NYC indie movie with a girl who is still figuring out her life. It's a kind of interesting contrast since it is the 50s but the comparison has to be made. Mara is also similar to those characters in that she's not very expressive. Things seem to be matter of fact to her and she doesn't go into hysterics like Blanchett's character. It's almost a meditation on a confused woman in the 50s who is only trying to figure out what she likes and how to deal with the world that is coming at her. I think it's a very melancholic performances that I would have rather seen in Best Actress. She would have been better suited for that category and I'd have a little more love for it, too. It's a good, strong, worthy performance to be nominated - just not in this category.

Jennifer Jason Leigh - The Hateful Eight

I'll be honest and say I was expecting a hell of a lot more out of this performance for all I had been hearing in the lead up to this film finally coming out. All the prognosticators were saying this might be an easy winner, definitely nominated, and a great female character from Tarantino. Maybe I let the hype get to me again but I was really thinking Leigh was going to be this tough ol' Annie Oakley type of character. Just a ballsy, take no shit, tough as nails broad that would dominate the men in this film. I also didn't really know the plot of the film so maybe if I had known I could have tempered my expectations. Leigh plays an outlaw who is shackled to Kurt Russell's character for almost the entire film and gets slapped around by almost everyone at some point. Leigh's character does have some of the qualities I thought I was gonna get as stated above but I wanted something other than a woman who takes the brunt of the violence throughout the film. Leigh is a coarse, haggard, crazy woman who is able to hold her own with the men but never really gain the upper hand. There's times when she seems kind of forgotten about while Tarantino focuses on the other characters and I think Leigh's performance leaves me wanting more, wishing QT would come back around to see what she can do next. I guess it's supposed to be somewhat funny in a black humor kind of way when she gets slapped around and calls Samuel L. Jackson the N-word a lot, but I was hoping for more than that. Only towards the end do we really see Leigh get to stretch her legs and start to open up her performance and let us see what she can do as Daisy Domergue (a great name, by the way). But it's too little, too late. We start to see what I thought we were going to get for the whole film but it's gone just like that to Tarantino's bloodlust. There's something there, but we don't ever get to fully see it, which is a shame for Leigh.

Rachel McAdams - Spotlight

I was really happy that McAdams was nominated for this role and for this film. Both are tremendous in how honest and straightforward they are. There is nothing flashy about either one, just a performance and a film doing yeoman's work. McAdams plays an investigative reporter for Spotlight which is the Boston Globe's serious investigative journalism team. That's pretty impressive as she's the only female but what I liked so much about the performance and film is that nothing calls attention to that fact. There's no montage of her being the working woman or at home juggling kids and husband and housework and blah blah. There's no one pointing out that hey, she's a woman! The whole team is treated as is. They are journalists doing a job that they've been doing well for awhile. McAdams plays the role perfectly and is really good at the no-nonsense delivery of her character. She gets across to us the audience that this is her life and what she does and that's that. She's a great investigative journalist and an equally important member of the team as the men are. It's not flashy, like I said, so her performance could be seen as boring or not having much there there. But I feel she's a big reason as to why Spotlight is so good. There's a scene where she's going door to door for information and leads and she talks with a priest who admits he molested kids but says it wasn't for gratification so it doesn't really count. This is a bombshell moment in the film and could easily be overacted by McAdams realizing she has a huge piece of information. She instead looks incredulous but amazed and determined and professional all at once. It's great acting and you come to realize her performance throughout the entire film is the same way. It's nice to see some great acting that's just solid all the way through instead of showy or gimmicky. McAdams is my easy favorite for this year.

Kate Winslet - Steve Jobs

So yes, I'm not a big Kate Winslet fan. I know I've alluded to that on here before. I've explained it's because I hate all the super fans online and elsewhere who say anything Winslet does should get nominated. This nomination sort of lives up to that idea for me. It's a juicy role for sure. Playing opposite a wonderful Michael Fassbender in a film written by Aaron Sorkin directed by Danny Boyle, how can you go wrong? I think because of all those things, and because it's Winslet, is why she got nominated here. I don't think it's a particularly good or great performance. It's just kinda there in the film for me. The biggest knock against it was that I had no idea until the second product launch (which is my big beef with the film, focusing on product launches and nothing else) that Winslet was playing a character that was Eastern European. Fassbender's character makes reference to that fact and only then did it dawn on me that she was speaking with a vaguely Eastern European accent. The accent was so hit or miss through the entirety of the film that I wondered how exactly didn't anyone correct her or tell her hey, you're accent sucks. And I'm sure you're reading going well who cares about accents mehhhh and okay not really a valid point but is her acting any good? She essentially holds a clipboard and rolls in to either keep Jobs on task or to chastise him about something and then get talked at by Fassbender in one of Sorkin's tete-a-tete's. That's my big issue is that I never see her do anything Oscar worthy. She won the Golden Globe but they are star fuckers so I don't take much stock in that, but I'm a little worried she might win for a very underwhelming role. One that does absolutely nothing to highlight everything great about Kate Winslet. Thing is, she's a very competent actress in Steve Jobs if you forget the accent thing. But nothing stands out and I'd rather reward a standout than a couldn't find anyone better so we went with a past winner deal. I know, and you know deep down, that Winslet could have given a way better performance than this and that's the frustrating part.

So my favorite is Rachel McAdams. I mean watch Spotlight and not get giddy at how real her performance is. Mara is second but that's because she is blatant category fraud, which is why I put her first because I can see the Academy rewarding that. I definitely like her in Carol but it's just not Supporting. Same goes for Vikander in The Danish Girl. She's the lead but they put her in this one for a better chance to win. Ex Machina might have won so maybe they should have done that instead. Then I'd say JJL for her potential and then Winslet for her wasted potential. I'll leave the Oscar winner blank until that's announced but I will edit it eventually. One day for this category is pretty good. It's not an awful category, either, which is at least something nice I can say about it! Not the worst, not the best.

Oscar Winner: Alicia Vikander - The Danish Girl
My Winner:  Rachel McAdams - Spotlight
Rooney Mara
Alicia Vikander
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Kate Winslet

Best Picture 2014

I thought I wrote a big intro for this year, but that didn't happen. I'm glad to be almost caught up with the current year for Oscar because at 88, I only have about 72 or so years to go. That's depressing. It's like the post 2000s doesn't even count. Ugh, anyway. This was a pretty good year. There were surprises and there were controversies and there was a lot of prognostication going on that was mostly wrong. Wrong predictions are what I live for. I love those surprise nominations like Selma or Marion Cotillard or Robert Duvall. I never like the obvious when it comes to Oscar. I want chaos, forever. Hopefully 2015 adds to the madness.

2014 Best Picture

Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)

This year was pretty unique as far as Best Picture goes since I didn't really dislike any (except for one but not entirely). Birdman was actually one of the last films I saw for the Oscars last year and when I finally did see it, it blew my mind wide open. I had appreciated seeing some of the other contenders and had recognized that some of them were really good but Birdman instantly made me fall in love and want to champion it to anyone that would listen. I didn't care if it was called gimmicky with it's whole made to look like it was shot in one take thing. That in itself is pretty damn impressive, right?! It makes the film feel so much more intimate and casual instead of wide, static shots with hundreds of edits. It gives it a dynamic sense of being and it really wowed me, even on second viewing. I also don't care if people argue that oh, it's just an actor/film/theater self congratulating type of piece because it's more than just that. I feel if anyone has been down and out and then come back can relate. It's not just about superhero fatigue or an old actor making a comeback or actors proving themselves on Broadway. I feel there is a million different interpretations especially with Innaritu adding in the floating Keaton, the Birdman talking to himself, and even the ending where did he or didn't actually do it kinda thing. It opens up a dialogue with the viewer and asks us all these open ended questions which is fantastic. The acting is all on point, the cinematography is amazing, the editing is astounding, the music is actually pretty great - it's the full package. It's a poetic film that knows how to trust it's audience and for that I appreciate it so much.

American Sniper

Clint Eastwood takes on the story of what a lot of people consider to be an American hero: sniper Chris Kyle. Yes, if you read up on the guy, he comes off like a gigantic douchebag and one of the reasons people hate military guys. Eastwood does his best to ignore all that and make a very rah rah film about his military career. That career is insanely impressive and Eastwood is able to craft a war movie that's pretty good. That's the war movie parts only, though. And even those can feel like they are done on a backlot unlike say Zero Dark Thirty which feels real, raw, and lived in. I won't say the war parts feel sanitized because they don't, but they do feel a little off to me, a veteran. However, Bradley Cooper is the saving grace of the film and all the war scenes because he does lend everything a certain gravitas. You focus on him as a person and character and you get all caught up in his unabashed love for the USA and protecting his fellow countryman who are down on the streets putting everything on the line. That's some of the best parts of American Sniper, when Kyle feels the need to protect his Marines like a big brother. Cooper excels in those moments and the film really shines. Where the film falters is on the homefront. Kyle's relationship with Sienna Miller feels a bit rushed and glossed over and Eastwood just doesn't seem to understand how to balance the two. When she's calling him and he's on a mission and talking to her while things go bad just feels contrived for the story because even if he's a SEAL, that wouldn't be allowed. The whole fake baby thing is also a bit ludicrous. Why not use a real baby instead of sacrificing the realism of your film and making your actor look really stupid in the process? I'm probably being a little more harsh than usual because I do think this is one of Eastwood's best films. But Iraq/Afghanistan war films are going to be something that's near and dear to my heart because I lived both. American Sniper is a good film if a little too rah rah America type but it's reverential to those that served and offers up a sense of what it's like to be deployed and fucking hate it. The ending and credits are enough to make you tear up and let's face it, American Sniper is a good movie.

Boyhood

Obviously when you talk about Boyhood, you have to start out by mentioning it was completed in real time for over 12 years. That in itself is beyond impressive, that actors would commit to something so long and so unsure of where it might head. It's something so impressive because it's never been done before. People will point to a documentary that caught up with it's subjects every 7 years or so but that's a documentary and that's the whole point of them! It's impressive that this was shot over 12 years with changes in technology and actors growing and changing yet everyone was still so dedicated to it all the way to the end. That shows up in the final product which does have a varied feel at times but also has such a passion about it. That passion is important because without it, Boyhood would be a complete and utter mess. Richard Linklater (and Ethan Hawke) has taken on a similar sort of project already with his Before films that showcase a couple over the course of years and years and all the issues that they go through in life. So the experience is there to whittle down 12 years to 3 hours. So how is the actual film? It's good! Although, there are parts that are not that good or are at least not that interesting. We begin with Mason as a 6 year old living with his mom and sister. It sets in motion the growing up story but honestly the childhood years are somewhat boring most likely because I find young kids like that to be mostly boring if they aren't inventing something or saving the planet or whatever. If anything, it's the nostalgia of seeing what was popular back in 2002 and on that serves as the appeal of the early part of this film. Nostalgia is really a big part of the film as a whole but that's all the beginning has going for it. It starts to get more interesting as Mason grows up and becomes a teenager and starts to have an actual personality. Although, again, Mason can be exceptionally annoying especially as a teenager to the point where you just really kinda want to smack him. I have a lot of issues with Mason in the story, though. Not much happens to Mason or at least there's no real adversity for him. Sure his parents are divorced when the film starts but it doesn't seem to really affect the kids much. The first alcoholic stepdad seemed to favor Mason over his real son but didn't physically do anything to him. He moves a couple times but quickly has friends, has very pretty girlfriends even though he looks like a cave man and they happen easily, he is never held accountable for his drinking or drugs, adults interact with him through speeches and monologues. He just never seems to have any trouble with life and that's where the story let's us down. The story just isn't as good as it could be, especially after 12 years. There's other missteps like when the kids are biking or skateboarding down a street and it looks really awesome with the cinematography yet the scene is ruined by Soulja Boy. Those pop culture additions sometimes ruin the scenes entirely. Ethan Hawke is good but he kinda floats in and out of the story/life as the cool dad returning to see his son. Wasn't a fan of Arquette and can't believe she won an Oscar for that but whatever. I want to say that the concept of this story and film is amazing. There were/are so many people that called this film a masterpiece and I can understand why but I contend that people are a little more enthralled with the idea rather than the content itself. If this were made in a year it probably wouldn't have all that effusive love but then again if it were made in a year it would be as detailed and interesting. Point being that the concept is fantastic but the execution of the story is lacking for me. I don't want this to sound like I hate Boyhood because I don't. I find it really interesting and even when I was watching it I kinda fell in love with it before snapping right out of that feeling once it was over. I could easily watch another 12 years of Mason and his life because I'm certain it would be a lot more interesting to see him as an adult. But there's no doubt that it belongs in this group and it will be remembered for decades to come which isn't too bad.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

It feels right that this was what Wes Anderson was finally nominated for in Best Picture, because it is his best film to date. It also feels like THE quintessential Wes Anderson film, an amalgamation of all his previous works rolled into this vibrant one. Vibrant is accurate because I think what I like most about Anderson's work is the colors and the set/production design because it's so fantastical. A lot of people take issue with his films for being so whimsical and style over substance or overly pretentious/cute but he just has a singular vision for his work and strives to achieve it. Grand Budapest is no different. It has the requisite myriad of acting stars who deliver fun and funny performances. We get the beautiful set design that relies a ton on miniatures and looks fantastic. Costume design and make up is top notch. The performances of those myriad of stars is always a treat to watch unfold and the story, while cloaked in the cutesy and flippant, is always, at it's core, something everyone can relate to. Grand Budapest is buoyed by the absolutely excellent Ralph Fiennes who should have been nominated for his hilariously Andersonesque concierge. You've got tremendous supporting acting from newcomer Tony Revelori who goes toe to toe with Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe. That might be the only time I list off the actors in a film in a review but a film like Grand Budapest deserves all those mentions because that's what it's built on.It's score which won the Oscar, is also a treat to listen to. It's where everything about a film comes together: direction, acting, costume and make up, score, cinematography, production design. Grand Budapest is excellent in every single facet of the filmmaking process. I don't know how anyone can watch this film and not enjoy it and all that Anderson has to offer. It's a hilarious film to boot and I understand that sometimes films like this can be divisive with it's humor but I certainly think Grand Budapest is universal, there's nothing too cerebral about it and the humor is very physical. Wes Anderson also comes up with some really terrific scenes and seems to contribute to the cinematic highlight reel with every film and this is no different. Let's face it, Grand Budapest is Wes Anderson's most accessible and most successful film to date, it's also his most worthy inclusion to Best Picture by a landslide.

The Imitation Game

This was one of two British biopics that came out and got a lot of hype for it's actor and seemed to really impress the Academy and I'm not sure why other than the amount of British people in the Academy. This film tells the story of Alan Turing who cracked the Enigma with his computer (before it was a computer) and helped win the war for the Allies...oh, and also happened to be gay and was arrested and ultimately killed himself because of the British government's forced hormone therapy. That 'oh, and is very important because at it's heart Imitation Game is a biopic about how and when the Enigma was broken. However, the film also wants to have it's cake and eat it, too by including the homosexual nature of Turing's life but mostly as a plot device and primarily as an afterthought. It just feels like the film was made to not offend too many people and so they shied away from really diving deep into Turing the character and just glossed over that really important part of his life. I didn't think the film itself was really all that good, honestly. While watching it does suck you in to see how Turing cracks the Enigma and because Cumberbatch does a good job with what he is given to work with but that's about all it has going for it. If it was purely all about the Enigma machine and the historical aspect of it then maybe it would have been a much better film to me. It's as if it takes away from the WWII parts to add in the police interrogation and even the boarding school stuff. When they finally do crack Enigma, it almost feels a bit anti-climactic and the film then quickly ends. All told, I wanted a lot more out of this film than what we got. Go deeper into Turing's life than you did and don't skimp on the story of actually breaking the Enigma. The Imitation Game wasn't terrible by any means but I know it could be so much better.

Selma

This is kind of an odd film that somehow made it's way into the Best Picture group and only had Best Original Song as it's other nomination. I say odd because it is clearly a very good film, a powerful, important film that somehow didn't catch on with the Academy except for the gimme category of Song, which it won, and Picture. That tells me that the Academy probably voted for this film based on it's importance and content rather than actually watching it and voting it in for it's merit. I don't think that's a very controversial idea but that is what makes the most sense to me. That's both incredibly racist that they wouldn't watch it and incredibly inclusive that they would vote it in without seeing because of what it is about. I think it just amazes me that it made it in and I know wholeheartedly that it's a good thing it's among the Best Picture nominees. I also know that my idea could be the furthest thing from the truth and I have nothing to back my claim up with but that's how I feel. Why else would they not nominate a very, very strong performance by David Oyelowo as MLK when they love nominating biopics and real people? Why would they not jump at the chance to nominate a black man who had the possibility of winning if nominated? Or voting for the first black female Best Director? I can't explain those choices and lack of nominations but they stand out in stark contrast especially with middling films like The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything on this list. Selma does make MLK into a less mythical figure which is nice to see because from all accounts he was as human as the rest of us. Every time Oyelowo is on screen as MLK, there's a commanding presence and it lifts the film up when it sags. I'm not sure any other actor could have done so much with the character and the performance as Oyelowo did. That's why I wish he was in the Best Actor race. There are some visually striking scenes that stand out not only in their brutality but in their beauty, as well. Director Ava DuVernay is young in terms of being a filmmaker and she does bring some energy and interesting scenes while still hitting all the familiar biopic beats. I will say that some of the supporting players in this come off as contrived and as stock characters. Tim Roth's Governor needs to be twirling a mustache to complete his evilness, which is unfortunate because you don't need a caricature like that to demonstrate how wrong the man was. There are missteps in Selma and this is not a perfect film by any means, but it is a very good one that I'm glad the Academy was able to nominate - no matter the reason they did so.

The Theory of Everything

Ugh, so I'll be upfront and honest and tell you right off the bat that I very much dislike this movie. To me, this is what people think of when they think of an Oscar movie. I'm using Oscar movie as a pejorative because this one encapsulates all that I hate about those kind of Oscar movies. A (British) biopic that pretends to be more important than it really is but is in reality just a boring, rushed love story that manipulates it's audience for the sole purpose of winning awards. There's no doubt to me that a film about Stephen Hawking could be incredibly compelling, but wrapping it up in a tired and fictional account of love sells the subject too short. He's a brilliant man and we see parts of that in this movie but the personal side just overpowers, which would be okay if the personal side was at all compelling. But knowing that this was a doomed love story from the beginning forces the audience to believe a lie that this was some Great 20th Century Romance. It's absolutely not. So we the audience are forced to watch this sham go on at the same time as Hawking's illness takes over the story. Watching those parts progress isn't so bad and it's an obviously very physical role that Redmayne takes on, even capably. But then the movie switches over to focusing on Jane, the wife, and her dealings with Hawking and the family and life. Hawking becomes this supporting player in his own film and it just never takes off for me. It gets bogged down in this boring story focusing on the wrong things. Redmayne is not that terrible but after awhile, once the disease takes hold, it becomes pure imitation through and through, with much less the charisma and believability as say Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot or any number of handicapped performances. The direction is slick and glossy and seems more engaged in getting shots that will look good in the trailer or on an awards reel. There's a lack of balance between the personal and professional life of Hawking that makes The Theory of Everything feel so uneven and unsure of which story it really wants to tell. Why does it gloss over all the messy parts of their relationship when we know it was far from perfect? Why does it turn Hawking into this perpetually smiling caricature instead of giving us an honest take on a genius whose life wasn't strictly fairy tale? I can't answer those and The Theory of Everything can't be bothered to address them, either. I guess it just shows what fancy direction and young pretty stars can do for a biopic these days. This was the movie I was least looking forward to re-watching for my project and while watching it, I remembered just why I never wanted to see it again. Now that I'm done with 2014, I hope my next re-watch of this is a lot longer than a year.

Whiplash

It's very obvious that this was a work of passion. It's also obvious that this was a work that was years and years in the making. Director Damien Chazelle's youth mirrored that of the subject of Whiplash's life: he, too, was a jazz drummer and you can easily tell that this is a very personal and intimate piece of filmmaking. I'm pretty sure that's why Whiplash works so well, because the film feels lived in from the very first beats of the drum. The film also has the added luxury of having been a short film before it was financed to become a full movie. J.K. Simmons was in the original short so he, too, was able to explore his character more and just offer up a really authentic and intense jazz music teacher. And that word - intense - describes Whiplash perfectly. Go ahead and watch it and not start to get sweaty palms when Miles Teller tries to impress Simmons' authoritarian dictator/teacher. It also moves along at a really great pace because the scenes are so engrossing and so exhilarating that you don't realize that you just got sucked into this world for 20 minutes. Miles Teller delivers a pretty great performance as well as the jazz drummer student and matches the intensity of Simmons beat for beat. My one quibble with the film is the pointless little love story side plot that goes nowhere. I get that it's probably meant to show Teller's dedication to jazz drumming by coldly dropping this sweet, cute girl who he clearly likes so he can focus on drumming but it feels way too shoehorned in as if a producer was in Chazelle's ear dictating that there's at least one female in the film. If it sticks to purely the jazz drumming student/teacher relationship and how obsessed and dedicated one must be to pursue a passion so earnestly. That's another reason I like Whiplash so much is that it doesn't really profess to be anything but a really intense showdown of a jazz drumming teacher and student. It knows what it is and it uses economy of force to get there. Hopefully I'll see another tight, breakout film like this land so well with the Academy because these are the kind of films you can fall in love with from this project. If I were starting this thing 10 years from now and hadn't been a huge film nerd, this is the kind of film that gets you excited at what the Oscars can be: a showcase for films you otherwise might not see but eventually end up becoming one of your all time favorites. Whiplash might not be quite there yet for me, but it sure is a damn good film.


This was a pretty good year as far as Oscar contenders is concerned. There was a controversial period before the nominations and then we got who was selected and then we bitched and complained about those that were left out. Like every year. This year was pretty good because Birdman won and deservedly so. Though if I were a little more adventurous, The Grand Budapest Hotel would have been my easy favorite. It's easily the most enjoyable film of the bunch! Whiplash also rises up my board because it's so damn good. I don't give a fuck if it's small or too genre-y, it's fantastic. I really liked Selma as well because it's a statement and also a good flipping film. Boyhood is next and low because it's a cool concept but a boring film, sorry to say. Then American Sniper which has it's flaws but is a pretty good war film comes in next. I hate to sink it to this spot but it has it's faults. Then we get The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything. They both suck and can get fucked. I hate that they beat out Foxcatcher and Inherent Vice sitting on the sidelines. Not a bad year but it could have been way better. I guess that describes every year, though.

Oscar Winner: Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
My Winner:  Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Selma
Boyhood
American Sniper
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything