Best Picture 2016

Going back to the current Oscar ceremony has been such a nice breath of fresh air. I have really enjoyed watching all of these films and I think the year after the whole white wash controversy was a very big success. We got such a wide range of films and a diverse palette of performances that I can only hope that 2017 is as strong as this year. It makes me hopeful that the Academy is leaning in the right direction of being a more inclusive awards body and not just going for the same tired Oscar bait films and roles. We shall see if that continues or not.

2016 Best Picture

Moonlight

Oh man, lots to talk about with this film! We all should have seen that crazy ending to the Oscar broadcast where La La Land won but didn't really and Moonlight was the real winner. That won't ever be forgotten about, but don't let that overshadow the fact that Moonlight is a fantastic film. The thing that sticks out for me about this film, besides the acting and the direction and the story, is how intimate this film feels and is. I mean, I know this was a true indie film, but go back and look at the previous Best Picture winners and you will see this is the smallest, most intimate film to win that I've seen so far. And I'd venture to guess this would be true for the Oscars as a whole. Nothing really compares to Moonlight, yet the film, to me, has broad appeal and is way more than just a black film or a gay film. This is a coming of age film, a love story type of film, a film about people living their lives. The film just also happens to be the first all black film to win Best Picture and (I think) the first gay film to win, too. But I don't see this as a direct response to the whole OscarsSoWhite thing the year prior because the film itself holds up under scrutiny. Sure, if Hidden Figures won BP you'd probably have a case. Moonlight transcends all that crap, though, for me. We watch in three parts as Chiron grows up and deals with his tough life situation and his own sexuality. The three Chirons are all fantastic even if all three are a little different individually, though they maintain the same sort of stoic outlook between them. The supporting characters are good, but especially Mahershala Ali, who was rewarded with an Oscar for playing Juan. I wanted more Juan in this film instead of just the first 30 minutes or so and a whole film with him would have been just as great. But I am happy that the film chose to follow Chiron as he maneuvered his way through life. Moonlight is a complete film with amazing direction, cinematography, a nice subtle score - all making for a richly engrossing experience. I really mean that. I wasn't sure if the film would be all hype but once I started watching, I was completely hooked. I think because it's such a simple and honest story, where the story is the main draw besides the acting going on in it. I'm excited to see what Barry Jenkins does next if this is any indication of his future work. I think if people give this film a chance, they will end up liking it enough that it might change some views on indie film, watching black films, watching gay films - all of that. That's why it's kind of awesome that this won Best Picture because so many people are going to watch this solely because of that reason and will experience something different than any other Best Picture winner so far. Anyway, it's certainly a great film and might just be my winner, too.

Arrival

This is the first time I've had the pleasure of writing about a Denis Villeneuve film. I'm a big fan of his work and I firmly believe Sicario should have been a Best Picture nominee in 2015. He's a very exciting director and has the Blade Runner sequel coming out this year along with Prisoners and the brilliant Enemy that both came out in 2013. He's also got a few French Canadian films that are highly regarded in his past that are award winning, so clearly Villeneuve is a person to watch in the future. I think the man is going to win a Best Picture and Director award at some point in his career. Arrival is an interesting science fiction film based on the also brilliant Ted Chiang's novella "Story of Your Life." (Really, read all of Chiang's work if you can, he's a multiple Nebula and Hugo award winner for a reason.) It's about linguistics as Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner try to figure out what these aliens who have come to Earth have to say to us and what their purpose is. A lot of comments online mentioned that people were confused by the film and that it was hard to follow but to me it's a pretty straightforward film even with the time bending. If you can't follow this story, I'm not sure you should be watching films. With that said, this film is a very adult type of film. By that I mean it makes you pay attention and actually has an intellectual subject as it's premise. Adams is fantastic in the linguist role who the aliens entrust with the truth and she realizes that time is a flat circle. Okay, really they allow her to see her future while living in the now which allows her future to happen because she knows what's going on and yeah, it's a complicated concept to understand but the film doesn't get heavy with it. You can understand the basic principle of what they are intending. Adams cracks the code and ends the potential WWIII mess all while knowing that her future brings tons of heartbreak. That is the heavy stuff and it certainly gives you a ton to think about. Villeneuve directs the shit out of this and it looks fabulous and reminds me a lot of his film, Enemy, with the squidward alien things. But also the same sort of person dealing with what is reality concept. I'm super happy that a very smart science fiction film like this was actually nominated for Best Picture because that is what expanding to possibly ten nominees is all about. This would never have made a group of five. But for all time now, people will watch this film and ponder deep things thanks to Denis and Ted Chiang. I hope that more Chiang short stories will be adapted because they will be amazing if done right.

Fences

I was both wary of Fences and somewhat excited. This film came after the whole Oscars so white deal and blah blah blah. But! I think the film came at the perfect time. I was wary about it because of that specific reason. Is this just a cash grab response for the previous year? Well, things get put into production years into advance so obviously no, this wasn't a response. This was Denzel wanting to bring to the big screen a play he loved and respected immensely. And damn, did Denzel pull it off. He filmed, produced, starred in this and it's so good. The big knock on it is that this film is a play on screen. Yes, it is. It has rapid fire dialogue which tends to leave great performances. We get that here, with Denzel almost never shutting the hell up. Seriously, Denzel is talking for the majority of the film. That's why it has that play-like feel. This is an intimate look at a black family in Pittsburgh and we see their familial issues. Denzel dominates and we learn about his life that effects his current wife. That's a very sterile description but Viola Davis holds it down and makes it worth watching. I dunno, I mean, this is a Denzel film and he is the main part of the film. I like the film, a lot! I think Denzel delivers a great performance and Viola Davis is wonderful in her part. But this is very much a theatrical movie. It is a play on film, especially for the first half of the film. It is set up like a play and everything comes off like a play. The dialogue is rapid fire and constant like a play. So that's my big gripe. Denzel doesn't shut the hell up. He has constant dialogue. He's a loud, angry, black man. It serves the purpose of the story but it gets annoying. The film itself is too long. Towards the end, the film loses strength. Too many montages and then a certain character is gone and the story still drags on. Yeah, it loses some steam for the last say 20-30 minutes. It really needs to be condensed and shored up. But I did think it was a very interesting look into the every day black lifestyle. This is the middle class black world in Pittsburgh in like the 50s and though the scope of the film is so insular, it is compelling nonetheless. I'm glad this play was brought to the screen because it's so good and tells a story that we all need to see and hear and experience. But this is a small film that gets stretched to 2 plus hours and it shows. A good film for the post OscarsSoWhite era but not quite a winner.

Hacksaw Ridge

You can't deny that Mel Gibson knows how to tell a damn good story. Hacksaw Ridge is entertaining on two different fronts. The first part of the film tells the story of Desmond Doss' upbringing and how he came to join the Army. We see that he has a tough family life with an alcoholic father who beats the family whenever he feels like it and he almost kills his brother in a fight which starts him on his pacifist ways. We see Doss meet a cute nurse and be a persistent charming cornball before going off to basic. There he runs into his fellow soldiers and his commander hating him for refusing to pick up a gun on religious grounds. He has to win them over by persevering through the beatings and extra duty to gain their trust. He still has to endure an unfair court martial that is ultimately dismissed before Doss is allowed to ship off to Okinawa. This first part of the film is very sentimental at times with how things were and is very Americana in it's praise of the small town kid who is big into his faith. Garfield makes Doss into a compelling character despite it potentially being one big stereotype. I venture to say Garfield is the only reason the early parts work. Once it gets to boot camp, the film really picks up steam and has a hilarious Vince Vaughn as well. The boot camp scenes and then the court martial scenes are more interesting to me than the sun drenched early scenes of Doss' youth. Then we finally get to combat and watch Doss do his miraculous thing. The combat scenes, which were heavily criticized for being too gory and fetishistic, feel pretty powerful to me. Yes, Gibson lingers on some bodies too long and certainly likes using fire and having people burn for a while but I felt like it shows the brutal nature of war in stark terms. It's not the heavily edited Saving Private Ryan opening, it shows carnage without too many fast cuts and one second shots. But it also allows us to become Doss and see what he sees in a way. I know that's stretching things a bit but we get a real sense of what Doss is going through with all the violence and what he has to overcome and push through as a medic. I also like that it doesn't turn Doss into a superhero. He's not some invincible ninja or hooah Army God. He's a guy doing his job to the best of his abilities, saving Americans and Japanese alike, and not trying to be anything special. When we see Doss saving these men, it's almost a matter of fact thing. Doss is using his training and overcoming issues like being shot at or having to drag someone much heavier than himself. I like that Mel doesn't treat Doss as a God but more of a real life human being who did something massively heroic. That's why I like Hacksaw Ridge. I could do without the youth parts or at least have them toned down from the sentimental aspect but the rest of the film is surprisingly good. Some people might not like it as much or will take their Mel bias in with them but he tells a great story and sheds some light on an interesting American hero without taking it to the extremes.

Hell or High Water

I love the hell out of these kinds of films. I guess this is considered to be a neo-Western, kinda like No Country for Old Men, which is the film this got compared to a lot during the Oscar race. I get the comparison in style but the two aren't all that similar, really. An old, hard ass cop and money being involved in West Texas but you can stop there. This film is about two brothers (Chris Pine, Ben Foster) who are robbing banks in order to buy back the family farm from the bank they are robbing. Two Texas Rangers (Jeff Bridges being the main one) track them down to an ultimate showdown. The film is fantastic. It's relatively short by today's Oscar standards (hour and forty minutes) but it packs a ton into that short time. The relationship between the brothers is very well done and never feels hokey or too overstuffed with prior history. That to me is a credit to the wonderful script that doesn't burden us with too much extraneous exposition or background. We get just enough which keeps the pace strong. The other relationship of the two Rangers is funny and we are endeared to both sides through their interactions with each other. The setting will never get old either, as West Texas (or Texas in general) always offers luscious cinematography and that's no different here. So you've got strong performances all around, great writing, great direction/look to the film, and a brisk pace to the events with a lot of action to keep you engaged - what the hell isn't there to like? I think my one big hang up is that in the final confrontation the shooters are just perfect at hundreds of yards which, yeah, I get it's Texas and guns are a way of life but not everyone is a sniper. That's my main nitpick but other than that this is a film I'm going to watch again and recommend for others to watch because it is so well made and enjoyable. There's not much fat and gristle on this thing and that's how I like my BBQ.

Hidden Figures

I will bring up that elephant in the room, so to speak, right off the bat. A year after the Oscars So White controversy, there was no way that a very successful film (critics and box office wise) about smart, strong, historically significant black women wasn't going to be nominated for Best Picture. I'm not fully convinced in earlier years with the five film format that this might not have made it into a group. Hidden Figures fits what the Academy likes with the film being a tidy, crowd pleasing film that only somewhat forcefully rocks the boat when it comes to its subject matter. It does hit us over the head that racism was widely prevalent as a just how things are, the status quo. But these are mostly minor inconveniences for the film that are easily overcome by our three starring black actresses. Hidden Figures is a popcorn flick. Easily digestible for a broad audience even if it's a film about black women. It's meant to be tolerable for every one and certainly makes white people feel good about Costner standing up to the racism by having him tear down a coloreds only bathroom sign (which didn't happen in real life). It's a safe representation of racial feelings and ideas at the time but thankfully that's not exactly the main focus of the film. It's about those three women challenging their roles in society and in their job as both black AND women. The film takes on both of those issues (albeit with kid gloves) and celebrates the achievements of the three women that helped launch America into space. If this film tried to be harder and more realistic in the portrayal of racism and the challenges of black women, it would be an entirely different film that may or not be in this same spot. I'd lean toward not being here but I do wish that someone will make that film at some point, whether about this subject or something else. But Hidden Figures is what it is and that's a nice family friendly look at three black women overcoming astronomical odds to succeed at NASA and become respected figures in the space race. I enjoyed the film and the performances and I'm glad with it being included in a very diverse lineup of Best Picture nominees. If it hadn't been nominated, I'm not sure I'd be clamoring for it's inclusion just because it is such a slick, feel good type of film. But Lord knows there are plenty of those films on the Best Picture list which is why I won't get upset at it being here. It's also just a great film about a little known historical fact for black people and Americans in general. It's worth a watch for that fact alone.

La La Land

Welp, watching this Oscar broadcast was probably the most interesting one I've ever seen, and probably anyone else for that matter, because this won Best Picture but didn't really win. That whole sequence of events was hilarious and messed up and I knew something big was up when I saw a stagehand rush in before the confusion really started. So, this film was super hyped all the way through the Oscar season, winning everything and getting it's fair share of champions and detractors. I've been pumped to finally watch this film to see what in the hell everyone was so enamored with. The film is an obvious homage to all the old Hollywood and French musicals from years ago and it does a great job in imitating their style. The colors are so bright and fun and make the film easy to watch because if anything, you can just watch the colors go by. Musicals live and die with their songs and I think La La Land actually succeeds wonderfully in giving us memorable songs that stay with us after the film is over. I've had a couple of the songs stuck in my head for a few days now and if it can have that staying power with me, then it's a winner. A lot of musicals have very boring, dry, too Broadway-like tunes that never grab the audience's ear. They seem more made for the theater student to audition to and show off vocal range or something. This film has great jazzy numbers that stand out and last and will most likely become iconic on their own. Both lead characters have great chemistry. Gosling and Stone are great together and have shown that in the couple of films they've been in together. You can tell they have built something up over the years and it pays off here. I like all of these things about La La Land so why do I feel pretty underwhelmed with the product as a whole? The story was fine but I didn't think Emma Stone was all that Oscar winning worthy. Gosling is fine but he's not going to steal the show with a performance like that even though I like it. I think this got so hyped up that I was expecting something that would knock me over but instead made me give a confused shrug. I see and understand the appeal but I was expecting the performances to be amazing and the story incredibly compelling. I don't feel that way at all about those things. And I've seen it twice now in a couple days just to make sure my opinion wasn't clouded by being tired or something. But even after two watches I'm still kinda ambivalent towards the film as a whole. To me, this is a perfect example of the parts being greater than the whole. I'm actually glad now that it didn't win Best Picture (this is without seeing Moonlight just yet) because then I think I'd tear it down instead of celebrating some of the things I really liked about it. Damien Chazelle has made two really good films back to back and really has an eye for interesting and inventive shots so I'm excited for whatever his next project is. Though I must say it really bugs me that Stone's big song in this film is a rehash of Kermit the Frog's Rainbow Connection. You won't be able to unhear that one now. All in all, La La Land certainly deserves a lot of its attention and to be included on this list and makes for a very energetic and happy watching experience.

Lion

After watching Lion, the first thing that really struck me about the film was how much the first part reminded me of Slumdog Millionaire. Seriously, both films follow around a young boy trying to survive on the mean streets of India. Both highlight the vicious, poverty infested wasteland that is India's more poorer areas. Both boys have to escape adults who want to groom and traffic them and the poverty stricken landscape is played up to masturbatory levels. At times I was like, I get it, life is pretty rough for the poor and lost in India. The cinematography is beautiful in a weird way even if it's showing the starkness of the poorer areas. With that said, the first half is still good even though all the beats feel familiar due to a very good child acting performance from young Saroo. All kids can be a little precious and annoying but he, and the director, does a nice job of minimizing that. Once we hit the grown up Saroo in Dev Patel, his performance carries on what the younger Saroo was building. Patel is a little reminiscent of his Slumdog work but he has obviously grown as an actor and shows off more range with his character that is also searching for his lost family. The film ramps up the tearjerker moments in the second half and I do think some people might be put off by such obvious emotional manipulating but I guess I was in the right mood for it when I watched it because it hit me pretty good and I enjoyed it immensely. Run on sentence aside, Lion is the kind of film that plays well with today's Academy. Something like this might have had trouble squeezing into a group of 5 but with the more diverse Academy, this tearjerker about an Indian boy adopted by white parents using Google Earth to find where he used to live hits their sweet spot. It's a really easy to watch film that most people will enjoy, some will enjoy it way more than others like I did. But you also have to recognize how similar it is to a previous winner in Slumdog Millionaire and not get too carried away with it. They would make a great double feature, for sure. I'm glad I finally got to see this film, though.

Manchester by the Sea

While watching this film, I was really into the story and was really enjoying it as an overall work. But once I finished and really started thinking about everything that I saw, I had a few complaints. The film feels long and is, at almost two and half hours. If this story doesn't hook you, it's going to be quite the slog to get through. My big huge complaint, though, is the character of Patrick played by Lucas Hedges. The film is about Casey Affleck whose brother dies and he has to come take care of Patrick. Patrick makes no sense to me as a character and I'm not sure what writer/director Kenneth Lonergan was going for with him. Patrick's dad dies and he just doesn't react at all like a normal person would. He never gets emotional save one little breakdown and that's it. The kid makes jokes, hangs with his friends, tries to bang his multiple girlfriends, and just seems completely unfazed that his dad just died. And it's like that the whole film. He's more interested in saving money to buy a new motor for the boat his dad left him than mourning his dad. It blows my mind and really drags the film down for me. It sucks, because I love Affleck's performance and I like how the film uses the flashback technique to show us why Affleck is an emotionally void person. I liked the oh shit moment that happens in the middle of the film because I didn't see it coming and it hit me hard because it shows just how damaged Affleck was/is. I'm also a little annoyed with the ending because there really isn't any resolution to the mess that we just watched for two plus hours. It doesn't have to be neatly wrapped up with a bow, but I feel the audience deserves some sort of payoff. Is Affleck going to stay in Boston and have Patrick live with another family or is he going to stay with Patrick? Because I felt either ending would be possible. I'm sure some people liked the ambiguous nature of the ending and liked that the writing made us come up with our own conclusion but I'm not fully into that kind of payoff. I definitely felt like the longer the film went on, my love for it nosedived from being close to the top to being middle of the pack. I'll have to figure out where it stands after some time thinking about it and seeing if it settles in me or not. I have a feeling this film will be up or down for most people with some loving it and some hating it.


This was a fun year to follow closely. For most of the year La La Land was the presumed winner and we all know how Oscar night went down with them winning but not really winning. It made for a memorable ceremony and at least had some intrigue in what was becoming almost a stale year. I hate when there's a front runner that goes wire to wire with little drama going on.  So Moonlight winning was awesome and I'm with the Academy on this one, a really great choice. Hell or High Water is my number two because it's just such a tight, well done piece of film making. It's the one film in this bunch I would watch again and again with no hesitation. La La Land would come up third because I do like the vibrancy it brings and the fact that it brings back the musical. I could take more musicals like this, honestly. Arrival is a great bit of science fiction and I want more Denis Villeneuve in the Best Picture race in the future. He is going to be a stud director more than he already is. I had my issues with Manchester by the Sea but I really did enjoy the overall story and how it was told and Casey Affleck's acting. It was a frustrating film, though. I considered dropping Fences all the way to second to last because Denzel overpowered the film so much, but I recognize that he brought together a pretty good film and one that was interesting to watch. Hacksaw Ridge was entertaining and Mel Gibson can tell a hell of a story but it was hokey at times and it could have been a tad more serious than what it was for a war film. Lion, though I enjoyed it, was a rehash of Slumdog Millionaire in a lot of ways so that's why it is so low for me. It's still a good film, though. Hidden Figures is last simply because it doesn't really feel like a Best Picture type of film. I get that it tells an important story about our shared history but it probably shouldn't have made this group. This is a fun group to sift through and there are three black majority films and a film about an Indian boy with a musical, a science fiction film, and a war film all thrown in there as well. It's diverse and this is why I like that there can be up to 10 nominees. I wish it was a flat 10 nominees instead of a possibility because we'd get a diverse group every year just like this. I'm interested in what this year's Oscar race will bring as I haven't even heard much buzz yet, though it is still earl in the year. But for now, I'm on to the 70s!

Oscar Winner: Moonlight
My Winner:  Moonlight
Hell or High Water
La La Land
Arrival
Manchester by the Sea
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Lion
Hidden Figures