Oscars 2017: The Results

A little later than planned, here's the breakdown of just how accurate my well informed analyses/random guesses into the whole 2017 Oscar circus were. As a whole, I mostly agreed with the Academy's winning choices, but there were a number of wins - politically driven, I'm sure, which I don't even really mind (I just hate being in the wrong) - I disagree with vehemently. Oh well, it makes the whole annual affair that much more interesting...

Best Film:
First Choice: Correct. I didn't watch the ceremony live, so I didn't hear about the big winner screw-up until well after, but I never really doubted Moonlight winning. That movie deals with heavy themes like identity, ethnicity and sexuality, while La La Land is mostly plain fun. And the Academy's track record of rewarding plain fun is far from stellar.

Best Actor:
First Choice: Correct. Even though I wasn't wholly impressed by Casey's performance myself, I can say the same thing for the other nominees. All of them delivered strong performances, but none that will prove truly memorable. In this case, the buzz proved correct, and I just merrily went along with the buzz, I'll admit.
  
Best Actress:
First Choice: Incorrect. This choice I feel is undeserved. Stone did a fine job, but so did her male counterpart Gosling, also nominated (but for Best Actor, obviously). Point is, La La Land was a two-person job in terms of acting. In my mind, the pair carried the movie, not just the girl or the boy. Stone winning I feel is degrading to Gosling, who was equally up to his job, but is left in the cold. On the other hand, my choice, Natalie Portman, had to carry an entire movie by herself, demanding emotional intensity in every scene. She delivered just that, which makes Stone's win all the harder for me to bear. At least Portman already has one of those gold statues in her possession.
Second choice: Incorrect.

Best Supporting Actor: 
First Choice: Correct. No surprise here. Though I sense some political motivation for both this and the next category may also have been involved, to prove #OscarsSoWhite wrong. I don't mind, I fully agree with both choices.

Best Supporting Actress:
First Choice: Incorrect. In this case it's clear why one should watch a movie before judging its performances. I didn't have that option, because Fences was released locally rather late in the awards season, well before I posted my predictions. If I had seen it earlier, Viola Davis would have been on top of my list. Quite a strong show!
Second choice: Incorrect.

Best Director:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Like I said, whoever wins Best Film won't win Best Director. I put all my money on Moonlight, but by my own reasoning, this one was gonna go to La La Land. Which it did.

Best Screenplay:
First Choice: Correct. In hindsight, I think the year's strongest script was Hell or High Water's. But I didn't think it would win.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
First Choice: Correct. As it should be.

Best Animated Film:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Incorrect. Now this one makes me mad. Zootopia was a great film, no doubt. But it wasn't in any way innovative, nor was its animation so superb as in my own two choices. I really feel Zootopia's underlying political message was what won the Academy over, rather than the actual animation which this category is supposed to honour. I remain convinced this was the year's biggest snub on the part of the Oscars, and I'll always defend both The Red Turtle and Kubo and the Two Strings over Zootopia.

Best Foreign Film:
First Choice: Incorrect. Also a politically motivated win, a clear anti-Trump statement. Director Ashgar Farhadi won, but wasn't allowed into the country to pick up his Oscar, making the USA look bad (and rightfully so). However, Toni Erdmann is definitely the better movie, and I've noticed most fellow critics tend to agree.
Second choice: Correct.

Best Cinematography:
First Choice: Correct. Here's where La La Land starts to take most of the technical acclaim.

Best Editing: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Incorrect. Okay, so not this one. But I was never very impressed with Hacksaw Ridge in whatever way.

Best Production Design:
First Choice: Correct.

Best Costume Design:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Poor Jackie really got screwed over well.

Best Hair and Make-up:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Like I said, Suicide Squad deserved to win and surprisingly enough, it did. I don't mind being wrong on this one.

Best Score:
First Choice: Correct. No-brainer.

Best Song:
First Choice: Correct. I preferred the other song for which La La Land got nominated though.

Best Sound Mixing:
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Incorrect. Wow, this one came as an unwelcome surprise. Where's the time the sounds of Star Wars were the safest bet in the galaxy?

Best Sound Editing: 
First Choice: Incorrect.
Second choice: Correct. Hmm, La La Land didn't actually win so many technical awards after all. I'm glad Arrival reaped some reward.

Best Visual Effects:
First Choice: Correct. Very obvious choice.

Best Documentary: 
First Choice: Correct. Also no surprise.

Correct: 11
Second choice: 5
Incorrect: 5

Big reveal here is my number of Corrects and Correct Second Choices has remained the same compared to last year. So I remain consistent. But there's also no improvement. Story of my life I suppose.

Today's News: not a very busy week for news

The end of the year is nigh, the slow flow of news is a telling sign of that. Good thing too, since I got plenty of work to do in these last few weeks of 2014.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158349/vijf_regisseurs_op_shortlist_star_trek_3

Well, that's just nice! Five eligible directors and the one I trust most to save Star Trek from going down the drain immediately says he's not interested. A damn shame, since intelligent Sci-Fi is exactly what Trek is in dire need of to once again differentiate it from the action oriented likes of Star Wars, and intelligent Sci-Fi is just Duncan Jones' forte. Justin Lin and Daniel Espinosa are mostly mindless action directors (no offense, guys!), so not the types Trek needs. I haven't seen The Imitation Game (yet), nor have I sampled any of Morten Tyldum's domestic fare, so I can't speak of his suitability for Trek 3. Considering his first overseas film stars Benedict Cumberbatch, who previously played a character I so do not want to see again in the next Trek film, I'm inclined not to give Tyldum the benefit of the doubt, though I agree that is rather narrow minded of me. That leaves Rupert Wyatt. His Rise of the Planet of the Apes indicated a compatibility with smarter science fiction, but once again, his oeuvre isn't particularly elaborate and I don't feel like judging a director's capacities for Trek on just the one film. Duncan Jones was just what the franchise needed, in my mind. Very disappointing to know he won't be involved. And if such bad news isn't enough of a downer, the news reached the Internet this week that Paramount is eager to incorporate witty sidekick characters á la Rocket & Groot into the next film because of the success of Guardians of the Galaxy. Which once again goes to show that studio execs, at least the ones working at this studio, only follow what's hot and trending, rather than appreciate 50 years of Trek history that did pretty well without such blatant attempts to make the franchise resemble other popular properties. I truly fear for the future of Trek, it increasingly doesn't seem to have one that's worthy of the lore that came before...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158377/viola_davis_gecast_in_suicide_squad

Wow, Suicide Squad really seems to have a thing for casting Oscar nominees. Guess DC's strategy to differentiate itself from Marvel is to cast mostly actors with past Oscar buzz. The majority of the main Marvel actors are well suited at what they do, but, with a few exceptions, Oscar material they are not. Director David Ayer seems to have his job cut out for him managing all this movie's talent and the unavoidable egos that come with it. I'm glad they casted Davis rather than Oprah Winfrey. That latter choice just seemed to much like the stuff of 'silly Internet rumour', even if Winfrey is serious about a solid action career. Davis is known to excel at heavily dramatic roles, but has co-starred in plenty of action movies that don't take themselves overly seriously. Suicide Squad definitely falls into that category and so does the role of Amanda Waller, the government liaison tasked with overseeing all the villainous egos in the Squad itself. Seems like she and Ayer have that much in common, hopefully they'll be able to teach each other a thing or two.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158395/nieuwe_poster_marvels_agent_carter

Hayley Atwell is also one of those actresses who's in all regards skilled at her job, but not someone likely to get nabbed for an Academy Award anytime soon. Especially in her return to the small screen for Agent Carter (maybe she'll win an Emmy though, you never know). So far, I like what I've seen of this new show, and I always like seeing Hayley anyway. Nevertheless, with this series the Marvel Universe once again emphasizes its spy stuff, something which I feel it's overdoing. We already have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. running and that titular organization, though it took a blow recently on the big screen, is still very active in the Marvel movies as well. Now we get a show which spends a lot of its time exploring the origins of S.H.I.E.L.D. Too much espionage for my taste. Granted, the Marvel Universe is not just about superhumans, but it is hard to deny that's its most appealing aspect, so I would call for more superheroes and less shady spy organizations. Of course, with five upcoming Netflix series dealing with that subject, the future looks bright enough in that regard. And at least Agent Carter has the charming historical Fourties period to distinguish itself from the later S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans. So it's not just all repetition of the same thing, just variation.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158406/nieuwe_beelden_daredevil

Speaking of those upcoming Marvel titles, here's a closer look at one. After Agent Carter, Daredevil is the next Marvel series planned for 2015. And this one is a bit more super, though much more grounded in reality than his contemporaries on the big screen. He's not fighting aliens or gods, just busting criminal asses on the streets of New York. Something a bit more relatable. His outfit also isn't nearly as fancy as we're used to from superheroes. However, word is ths suit above is just an initial garment, and not the familiar final red garb, which will make its appearance later. Hopefully they'll manage to find a careful balance between fancy and gritty, the way the 2003 movie just didn't. At least Charlie Cox, like Atwell, is one of those reliable actors you can fully trust to make things work, without his demanding an Oscar in return.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158403/nieuwe_trailer_american_sniper

Bradley Cooper, however, does have his eyes fixed on an Academy Award. And he's also a part of the Marvel Universe, though not as visible as most (he's responsible for that funny raccoon from that recent space movie, remember?). Third time may prove the charm, having been snubbed for an Oscar twice already, but clearly taking a precise aim for one again in Clint Eastwood's American Sniper. Eastwood being a sort of Oscar magnet also helps his cause no doubt. Seems both director and star made a strong dramatic movie, if the trailer is to be believed. Very American too, and not just in regards to the title. Eastwood is not one to sugarcoat his country, and it apears American Sniper will make no secrets of the negative effects of American actions abroad against those citizens taking said actions. Nor will it need to defend itself from showcasing such actions, as the need for them is not without cause. Or maybe the trailer is dead wrong and the film is actually a ideologically black & white patriottic puff piece, who knows. Hopefully the movie will do this fine trailer justice.