Oscars 2016: The Results

So now that annual Oscar ritual is over and done with for another year, let's see how many of my predictions turned out more than just a hunch.



Best Film:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Also incorrect. But apparently, the same goes for most other people who figured The Revenant would come out on top. Few guessed correctly that the underdog Spotlight would take home this particular trophy. It seems that in an overly conservative mood, the Academy decided against going with the flow of what's popular (which I generally applaud) and gave the Award to this conservative drama piece. A good film to be sure, but simply not noteworthy by most accounts. Solid drama, some damn fine acting, a topic that still shows social resonation... but hardly a piece of cinematic innovation or exploration that will haunt audiences for years to come. People who complain about Oscar snubs will cry foul at the sight of this one for a few years. I'll get over it a lot sooner.

Best Actor:
First Choice: Correct. This feels like making up to predictability now. Everyone opted for Leo, so Leo won, almost as if by popular demand. The Academy always throws in one or two of these to keep the masses contented. But hey, few will consider his work on The Revenant as unworthy of this praise. Not me at least, as I, too, was part of Team Leo.
  
Best Actress:
First Choice: Incorrect. Don't be such a Blanchett fanboy, guy...

Best Supporting Actor: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Past success again proves to be no guarantee for present results.

Best Supporting Actress:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Incorrect. This was a tough one. To be honest, I'm a bit mad at the Academy for nominating Vikander for the disappointing The Danish Girl rather than the terrific Ex Machina in this category. She did a heck of a job in both films, but I reckon it was harder to pull off for the movie that didn't get the nomination here (what with all the CGI and such). Danish Girl turned out to be a letdown in every way but the acting. Seems that saved the day for Vikander here. It pays to play in more than one film each year.

Best Director:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Incorrect. Also a choice I hold umbrage against. Inarritu already won last year. Miller is 71 years old and has much shots at the gold left. This ought to have been his moment to shine. Whine whine, nag nag... This is another time the Oscars prove life sometimes just isn't fair.

Best Screenplay:
First Choice: Correct. I may not think Spotlight was the year's best film, but I never said it wasn't well written.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
First Choice: Correct.

Best Animated Film:
First Choice: Correct. Well, that one was a no-brainer.

Best Foreign Film:
First Choice: Correct. Also no real competition here. He said not having seen any of these films...

Best Cinematography:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Also incorrect. Dang it, I knew I should have gone with Inarritu after Birdman! What was I thinking...

Best Editing: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Another tough one.

Best Production Design:
First Choice: Correct. I told you, seeing is believing on this one.

Best Costume Design:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Man, I really thought those dazzling Disney dresses would do the trick again. Guess the Academy doesn't fall for those anymore...

Best Hair and Make-up:
First Choice: Correct. Obvious.

Best Score:
First Choice: Correct. My ears served me well on this one. It was just too beautiful to be anything else.

Best Song:
First Choice: Correct. Good title for a song, it turned out!

Best Sound Mixing:
First Choice: Correct.

Best Sound Editing: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. The times Star Wars dominated the galaxy of sounds have ended. A new order has risen. Oh well, better luck next year, Star Wars!

Best Visual Effects:
First Choice: Correct. Because even the Academy thought Alicia Vikander was a Visual Effect in this one. Apparently, they considered her acting the same, otherwise they would have nominated her for this film. But all's well that ends well.

Best Documentary: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Indonesian genocide is so 2012, Amy Winehouse is all the rage today. And never again.


Correct: 11
Second choice: 5-4.
Incorrect: 9

Blast, these results are worse than last year... (Correct: 14, Second choice: 5-2, Incorrect: 7, FYI). Plenty of glaring obviousness again this year, but some major surprises and snubs. The Academy never makes things easy for both gamblers and movie insiders. Or people with a blog and too much time on their hands.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.

Today's Review: The Wolf of Wall Street

 

The Wolf of Wall Street: ****/*****, or 8/10

You might at first be inclined to ask yourself, 'a three-hour movie about money, how can that be the least bit interesting?' Don't worry, for Martin Scorsese's grand 'dramedy' The Wolf of Wall Street is not a movie about money. In fact, the lead character himself directly acknowledges this fear early on in the movie by stating that 'we wouldn't be interested in all that stuff', afterwards largely avoiding the subject altogether. So don't go in expecting any dreary financial number crunching, since it's really all about what said money (lots and lots and lots of it!) does with people. People, inherently flawed, get progressively flawed – read: fucked up – as their income increases astronomically. Meanwhile, every sense of ethics, responsibility or even plain decency goes right out the window. Scorsese's case in point: Jordan Belfort.

Belfort, a superb piece of acting by Leonardo DiCaprio, starts out as many a regular Joe from the middle class: screwed over by a financial crash and reduced to unemployment, thus unable to provide for his loving wife. All the more disappointing for him as he had just found a job at a large Wall Street firm, where his boss (an impeccably loathsome Matthew McConaughey) saw his potential and advised him not to abstain of sex and drugs while on this job. Thanks to Belfort's talent for agressive sales pitching, he quickly recuperates selling worthless stock at a fifty percent commission rate, and before long he returns to Wall Street triumphantly with a loyal band of peculiar misfits in his wake (including Jonah Hill on steroids), all of whom have their specific place in his grand scheme of taking money from the ignorant masses that hope to make a quick buck on the stock market. The only one making easy money are Jordan and his friends though, and before long they become increasingly desensitized to the plight of their clients in favor of their own ruthless acquisition of wealth. 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is born, and despite Jordan's all too human persona, such a term fits him perfectly, as this alpha male and his pack of wild dogs scour the land preying on the weak and gullible to feast upon their cash in a financial frenzy. One that seemingly knows no bounds, as Belfort continues his practices for years without sanctions or indictments, despite ongoing FBI scrutiny. Nevertheless, Belfort needs no help in bringing him down, as he does a fine job at that on his own.

In many ways The Wolf of Wall Street is a fairly typical story of a man gaining the world but losing his soul in the process, as he is unable to keep his base instincts in check. Arguably, it's not the plot that makes the movie stand out, it's the way Scorsese tells it to his audience. Walking a fine line between comedy and drama that finds both in perfect balance throughout the whole, The Wolf of Wall Street proves infectiously hilarious at one moment and effectively poignant the next. As Jordan's novel lifestyle as a millionaire progressively takes its toll, his personal life spirals ever more out of control emotionally and physically as his constant drive for more and more dominates his every move. Fondly remembering his former boss' advice, Belfort sets out on a course of rampant sex and drugs without worrying about any consequences, as money will no doubt solve any obstacles in his path. Small wonder his wife soon leaves him as she finds him snogging a super model. Marrying said model doesn't increase the happiness in his family life, children notwithstanding. Abusing every conceivable illicit substance imaginable also doesn't work in his favor. Despite the many yachts, limousines, prostitutes and drugs, Scorsese makes it amply clear that this is not a life to be envied as Belfort's once decent personality is replaced by a greedy, amoral and self-annihilating character that can only get the better of him, sooner if not later. Having become a veritable slave of money, Belfort remains miserable, and we wouldn't have it any other way, as his road to a personal hell is paved with one outrageously funny messed up situation after another.

Aside from DiCaprio's top performance, Scorsese gets the very best out of his cast and crew in conveying this tale of human deterioration at the hands of boundless greed, which often borders on the unbelievable. Exploding planes, savage storms at sea, goldfish eating, dwarf tossing and the generally lavish parties of debauchery at the office heralding the weekend are among the many elements of The Wolf of Wall Street that are so absurd, they can only be true. In terms of comedy, nothing beats the delayed kicking-in of exceptionally rare drugs that causes a most unwelcome physical reaction at an hour of crisis at which the need to get home fast results in one of the most humorous car scenes ever on the big screen. Despite all the controversy, the many scenes of nudity and excessive swearing feel rightfully placed, and credit must be given to both the director and his brave cast to stick with such daring material instead of catering to a general sense of good public taste, something Belfort severely lacked. The fast paced, witty dialogue written by Terence Winter proves to be in excellent hands of the assembled cast of seasoned actors, including the likes of Jean Dujardin, Rob Reiner, Jon Favreau, Kyle Chandler and Joanna Lumley. Stylistically there's little to comment against the picture as the ingenious editing, wonderful cinematography and delightful score, featuring many a successful callback to the period in question, are found to be in perfect sync to make for a superior cinematic experience. But The Wolf of Wall Street at its heart remains another intimate collaboration between the grandmaster Scorsese and his personal muse DiCaprio, their fifth and finest thus far. The duo makes damn sure you care enough about Belfort to run along with him for three hours, but never are you really allowed to sympathize with him, given his deplorable nature.

With The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese has directed a modern classic warning audiences of the destructive dangers of endless self-enrichment, a film that is easily matched to any already existing films on the topic. Belfort claimed to be inspired in his professional shenanigans by the despicably greedy character of Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in Oliver Stone's Wall Street. Despite Scorsese's upsetting picture of the life and times of Belfort in his own Wall Street film, history has proven that there's always people present who just don't get the picture as they consider the wildest possible life of sex and drugs that money can buy the highest achievable goal to strive for. With DiCaprio's sublime performance, it stands to reason, like it or not, that in another three decades we'll be watching movies about similarly morally bankrupt characters based on actual personalities that will claim to have been inspired by Jordan Belfort in 'that classic Scorsese film'. Not something to look forward to, but a sad reality of what money hath ever wrought.

 

Today's Mini-Reviews: downfall of the rich and powerful

Iron Man 3: **/*****, or 5/10

Most disappointing of the Marvel Studios movies so far. Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) took over the director's chair from Jon Favreau who did the first two installments. Maybe it's Black's tendency to go over the top a bit too far, maybe the writers and producers just got terribly lazy in the creative process after the sucess of the predecessors, but Iron Man 3 proves a dud. Tony Stark finally has found a decent equilibrium between his eccentric playboy life and his public role as the armored superhero Iron Man, but soon his world is turned upside down after he deliberately picks a fight with the vicious terrorist leader Mandarin (“played by Sir Ben Kingsley”) who wounded his former bodyguard Happy (still performed by Favreau himself at least). The Mandarin comes down hard on Tony, destroying his mansion and seemingly obliterating his various armors. With only his wit, his engineering skills, his insufferable character flaws – he was never more irritating than he is here – and the aid of some kid in a shack, he soon turns the tables and confronts his new nemesis and his silly army of exploding people, only to find out the situation is not what it appeared to be, as the Mandarin is just a fraud (way to ruin a classic bad guy, Marvel!). Another adversary, A.I.M. leader Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is behind it all, out to revenge himself on Stark, literally for making him cry ten years earlier (now that's what I call a solid motivation for aiming to conquer the world!). During the film's climactic showdown, Tony can fortunately count on his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to save his ass, plus he had another 40 armors inexplicably hidden up his sleeve. Iron Man 3 pretentiously delves into semi-philosophical territory when it keeps asking whether the suit makes the man or vice versa, but the fact is we simply don't care. All we knew was that Robert Downey Jr. made Iron Man and now sloppy writing has allowed him to be unmade, for which Downey reportedly received the sum of 50 million (!) dollars, probably for looking the other way as it happened. At least Stark is basically still the same after four films, as it was clear what audiences wanted and expected from the get-go. The same can't be said for the Mandarin, whose presence was alluded to in the prevous two Iron Man films, but all of a sudden proves to be someone else entirely halfway through the film. Don't trust the trailers for this film that insinuated that we were in for a major epic villain played by Kingsley, since that's all a lie and you'll end up disappointed. Blame it on the Chinese involvement, as Iron Man 3 was co-produced with Chinese studios to cut costs (Downey's salary had to come from somewhere after all). And in such a case, you simply can't afford to have a Chinese villain claiming to be after the destruction of western civilization. Interestingly enough, the Chinese market received a slightly different cut of the film including scenes not seen in the regular version, to make it even more attractive for Chinese audiences. Iron Man 3 bodes ill for the rest of Marvel's Phase 2, but there's gotta be better upcoming movies to make up for this huge letdown. Ant-Man maybe? 

 

The Great Gatsby: ***/*****, or 7/10

Another visual feast by Baz Lurhmann (Moulin Rouge, Australia). The fifth version of the classic book by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and definitely the most extravagant, as we would have expected from Luhrmann, who always tends to lavishly overstylize his films. This is his first foray into the realm of 3D, and fortunately it's a successful one at that. From a narrative viewpoint, the movie predictably feels less intriguing. In the early Roaring Twenties, war veteran Nick Carraway (a rather dull Tobey Maguire, as is the norm) moves to Long Island, next door to a giant mansion belonging to the seemingly incredibly wealthy but enigmatic Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio, another one of his hugely rich and influential but emotionally tormented big screen souls). Drawn to the unreal world of fabulous upperclass decadence, Carraway soon gets his taste of high society as he attends one of Gatsby's unbelievably amazing parties. Gatsby soon purposefully reveals himself to Nick and recruits him to arrange a meeting between himself and Nick's attractive cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), a long lost love of Gatsby from before the Great War whom he lost contact with and who has since gone on to marry a rich but quite dislikeable land owner (Joel Edgerton). Hoping to respark their love thanks to Nick's involvement bridging their past, Gatsby and Daisy soon reunite and haphazardly start an affair that can only end in tragedy. But despite his attempts to basically bang a married girl, you hope Gatsby succeeds as he is a sympathetic character, once a boy who came from nothing but worked himself up to incredulous heights, while still favoring the lower class folks who live decent lives worth living, instead of engaging in the monotony of endless partying. Gatsby appears to make a stand for the poor, hard working labourers with his understanding attitude and actions, which can only lead to his downfall from the rich ruling classes and their corrupting power over everything and everyone. But what a downfall it is, shot with such dynamic vibrancy and wild colour schemes, presented in three jaw-droppingly beautiful dimensions! Nevertheless the blatant melodrama at the core is hard to be effectively sugarcoated, even in Luhrmann's elaborate ways. The Great Gatsby emulates its titular character, in the sense that it's packed with bombastic bravoura and laced with visual flair throughout, detracting you from the lack of a refined, satisfactory plot, which is notably absent if you care to see beneath the mask of its sensational appearance. Beneath the surface it's all fairly hollow, but not without a certain charm. This movie is a feast to behold as much as the parties it depicts would no doubt be a thrill to attend, but ultimately, it proves a fairly forgetful experience in the long run. And so Hollywood can keep remaking Fitzgerald's novel once every few decades to ever more spectacular results.

Today's News: Rasputin rises again

Just off the MovieScene hotline:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147842/leonardo_dicaprio_wordt_raspoetin

I wrote a paper on the infamous Mad Monk in high school, so I'm versed well enough in Rasputin's history to know there's plenty of material in there to make for a smashing movie. Intrigue, religion, social upheaval, class conflict, war and loads of saucy, steaming sex, Rasputin's life had it all. Not to mention a hint of the supernatural is available, if the people behind this movie choose to explore that particular aspect of his persona. The latter is doubtful, though his bizarre death certainly cannot be ignored: few people get poisoned, beaten, mutilated, shot, drowned and finally frozen without such a harrowing end being considered the stuff of movies after all. However, considering the names so far attached to this project, I'm convinced this movie will go for an intelligent, historically responsible approach to portraying the starets instead of overindulging in the sensationalism of his wild existence.

Speaking of names, Leonardo DiCaprio, really? Don't get me wrong, Leo has proven himself a formidable actor capable of handling any number of wholly different types of roles over the last decade. Still, a lot of movie magic is required to make him look and sound anything like the historical Rasputin. This one will take quite the metamorphosis, as it's unlike anything DiCaprio has ever done before. I always imagined Rasputin to be played by the likes of Benicio Del Toro, Mickey Rourke or even Jeremy Irons. Nevertheless, I know DiCaprio will succeed in making for a compelling Rasputin, and I look forward to seeing him die a violent, brutal, overly long and painful death.

The Aviator

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Martin Scorsese's biopic on billionaire Howard Hughes witnesses the second collaboration between himself and Leonardo DiCaprio, who finally definitively sheds his up until then dominating stigma of a 'pretty boy' superstar in favour of a classification as a true top actor. DiCaprio successfully plays the noted industrialist as a man ruled by his various personal ticks and impulsive weaknesses from the late 1920s up until his last few years living as a hermit in a hotel room. Lavish production design includes a phenomenal look at the Golden Age of Hollywood as Hughes took control of RKO Studios to direct his own movie, and various classic air planes constructed by Hughes as part of his most notable passion, his love of aviation. Scorsese also tells of Hughes' romances with star actresses Katharine Hepburn (a fantastic Cate Blanchett, who rightfully won an Oscar for her contribution) and Ava Gardner (a less convincing Kate Beckinsale). Overall, Scorsese does a good job at explaining this otherwise unfathomable man, though the film does drag on too much in the long run, especially when it comes to the affairs revolving Hughes' 'Spruce Goose' dream plane project.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale

Directed by Martin Scorsese

USA: Forward Pass, 2004