87th Annual Academy Awards

The fervor has built to a crescendo, and I'm here to tell you everything you need to know about tomorrow night's big event. We'll look at the main categories only, but I'll tell you who will win, who should win, and who should have been nominated.

Best Picture - This has been a tight contest between the three B's - Boyhood, Birdman, and the Grand Budapest Hotel. American Sniper is gaining some traction at this point as well, but the award is shifting in the direction of Birdman. Boyhood was an incredible feat, but honestly (sorry Academy), there was nothing exceptional about the film other than it took 12 years to make. James Cameron beats that with every film he makes, and Avatar was screwed in favor of a war movie back in 2009. Grand Budapest Hotel is not even Wes Anderson's best film, and although quirky and original, it is just too abstract. Best picture? Birdman will win. It has the most beautiful direction and cinematography of the year, is wildly original, and boasts a career performance by a beloved journeyman actor. Who should win? Whiplash. I was blown away, though audiences weren't quite as captivated. I'm not sure why the distribution wasn't greater, and that is what will ultimately hurt the film. Biggest snub? Nightcrawler. Haunting film that deserved a bit more recognition.

Best Director - This will come down to Richard Linklater and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Both did a fantastic job, but if we are awarding for creativity and excellence in direction of a film, Inarritu is a shoe-in. Again, the only thing special about Linklater's film is the originality of how it was shot and the authenticity. However, if I had 12 years, I could have made an even better film than Boyhood. Trust me. Inarritu should, and will win. Who should have been nominated? Probably boy wonder Damien Chazelle (Whiplash). The tension and magic of the film had as much to do with the camera angles as it did the acting.

Best Actor - A loaded category this year with no previous winners, and four first time nominees. There were some stellar performances this year, so it's a shame that four of these guys have to leave without an award, but that makes the victory even more sweet. If there's a blind-side at the awards, it might be Bradley Cooper stealing the statue for his role as the tormented Chris Kyle. It's possible that Birdman has gotten so much buzz that Keaton may have already peaked and won't get the most coveted of all acting trophies. That said, my predicted winner is Eddie Redmayne for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking. Voters seem to love biopics, tortured souls, and awards tend to be given to performances of disabled people. Redmayne hits the trifecta here, and he will walk away with his first well-deserved Oscar. Who should win? Michael Keaton. I'm a bit sentimental because he's such a familiar face in all of the 80's comedies from my childhood, and let's be honest, he is Batman. He has an incredible body of work and this should be his crowning achievement. Originality wins in my book, and his performance was based solely on his own interpretation of his own potential mid-life crisis and mental breakdown. Brilliant. Who should have been nominated this year? Jake Gyllenhaal for Nightcrawler. Snubbed yet again. It is absurd to think that his only Oscar nomination was for Best Supporting Actor in Brokeback Mountain. He has two films coming out later this year that might get him his second nomination. Is it better to deliver great performances and not be nominated, or to be continuously nominated and never win? That is the question.

Best Actress - This category is a bit weak, and Julianne Moore should and will win for her heartbreaking performances in Still Alice. Perhaps only beaten by J.K. Simmons in the categorical sweep this season, she simply deserves it this year. Who should have been nominated? Definitely Jennifer Aniston for Cake. She would be my first runner up this year, hands down.

Best Supporting Actor - No brainer, J.K. Simmons should and will win for his abusive band conductor role in Whiplash. The single most captivating and dazzling performance of the year. I need to give props to Edward Norton, who owned Birdman, and is resurrecting his career exponentially through his work with Wes Anderson and now Inarritu. I'm excited to see where his career goes, as there is nothing notable in post, filming, or pre-production right now. Who should have been nominated? I'm going to disembark from the critic train for a minute and suggest Channing Tatum for his role in Foxcatcher. Perhaps falling more in the lead actor category, I thought Tatum's Schultz brother was more emotionally alive than Ruffalo's. A dark and twisted film that could/should have been a bit more accepted had it not been based on such tragic source material, but nonetheless, I was a bit surprised that Tatum's name wasn't once mentioned in the company of Steve Carell and Mark Ruffalo. All three of them made the film what it truly was, and the acting was outstanding all around.

Best Supporting Actress - I can't get behind the Patricia Arquette bandwagon. Never liked or appreciated her work, and Boyhood is no exception. She will win the award, but the more deserving supporting actress is either Keira Knightley or Emma Stone. My nod goes to Keira Knightley simply because the role was a bit more demanding and meaningful. Who deserves a nomination and didn't receive one? Probably Jessica Chastain for A Most Violent Year.

Best Original Screenplay - Birdman all the way. Should win, will win. Boyhood's screenplay shouldn't really count as it was written a piece at a time over twelve years without any real direction. Birdman is deep, original, and most importantly, deliberate. Snub? There are always a few that could have been considered. I'm pretty satisfied with the nominees in this category, but if I were to make any additions, the top of my list would be Chef, Snowpiercer, Under the Skin, or Locke. Although Snowpiercer is a few years old, and the others were low-budget, narrowly released films, they all had great originality.

Best Adapted Screenplay - American Sniper will pick up a win here, although Whiplash is more deserving. Especially considering the writer/director adapted it from his own material. The only snub I can think of belongs to Gone Girl. The movie was much better than the book, and the creative team behind David Fincher always produces quality work.

There you have it, enjoy the evening, and it's time to start looking to next year (DiCaprio finally wins Best Actor).

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Director Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, Layer Cake), who is a long-time Guy Ritchie collaborator, brings his signature high octane action to theatres with what can only be described as a gratuitously violent James Bondian comedy. Vaughn has made a living taking unknown Brits and putting them in ridiculous action flicks, leading to a rise to stardom. It worked for Daniel Craig, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Nicholas Hoult, and now, Taron Egerton. There is something refreshing about an unrecognizable protagonist making his mark on film. Too often films rely on big stars (although Kingsman has plenty of them supporting Egerton) and that diminishes the action and the story.

Kingsman is a secret British organization with a substantial endowment that allows them to fight crime internationally while maintaining the honorable standards expected of a British gentleman. Fronted by a tailor's shop in London, they liken themselves to King Arthur's court, even using the names of the knights as their cover identity. Pretty cool stuff. When one operative is killed, a replacement candidate is given a tryout. Enter Eggsy (Taron Egerton). He is recruited by Galahad (Colin Firth) to replace the recently killed Lancelot, chosen because his father was a Kingsman years ago. With the help of Merlin (Mark Strong), and Arthur (Michael Caine), Eggsy finds himself battling recruits for the coveted position, and is drawn into an international conspiracy with implications that could kill billions of people. Typical James Bond saves the world stuff.

Samuel Jackson is Valentine, the billionaire technology mogul with an agenda dealing with population control, and he plays the villain with a bit of nonchalance. He has a lisp, and is given too many character flaws to be taken seriously or feared. There is an homage to the spy paradigm of elaborate plans, exorbitant amounts of money spent, world domination, etc. His trusty assassin/girlfriend is the cleverly crafted character Gazelle, played by Sofia Boutella. She is a double amputee, with more in common with Oscar Pistorius than just the carbon fiber appendages. She wields swords in her legs that allow her to kill in original and nasty ways. After doing a little research, I found out that she is a professional dancer with some ties to Nike. Makes sense after seeing some of her dance-fighting moves.

The blink-or-you'll-miss-it character is Professor Arnold, played by Mark Hamill. Yep, Luke frigging Skywalker. It was either makeup, or unkind aging, but that's him. I didn't even notice until the credits rolled. The film weaves iconic veteran film actors (Caine, Firth, Strong) with a youthfulness (Egerton and Sophia Cookson) that strikes a nice balance, and makes for a really outstanding cast overall. The tone of the film on the other hand, I didn't find quite as palatable.

On paper, Kingsman sounds really cool, and even the previews make it look like a fun time. Maybe I'm getting old, but this film would have been better losing some of the blood, dropping a few F-bombs, and going with a PG-13 rating instead of R. The sheer amount of blood and death is out of place with the comedy and fun spy gadgetry that the movie conveys. Even the gentlemanly aura that Firth puts out goes off the rails when we start to see shootings, stabbings, slicing, dismemberment, and more. Granted, Vaughn does an incredible job in one of the best choreographed fight scenes I've seen in some time. Firth in a church, taking on literally an entire congregation of insane people. The break-neck action is exciting and the choreographer deserves some serious props. The church scene will be talked about, and is certainly the most memorable part of this film. So violent in fact, that it has been removed from certain international cuts of the film (Vietnam and Indonesia confirmed, others I'm sure will follow suit). It reminds me in many ways of a Tarantino film, and I'm not convinced that Vaughn has that level of genius to be able to pull it off. I see it more as a way to garner attention and set himself apart from other directors in his genre.

The film loses appeal for me because of the ultra-violence, but it is an entertaining story with some brilliant action sequences. Pretty entertaining to see Colin Firth doing some full-on action for the first time in his distinguished career. He would have made a great James Bond a decade or so ago, but we'll have to settle for a more polished version of Liam Neeson. I am also tired of Samuel L. Jackson. He has done some incredible work, but I'd like to see him take a break and maybe reinvent himself. Granted, he's amassing a fortune due to volume of work (nearly 160 movies and counting), and has 4 films in post-production, 1 filming, and 3 in pre-production. Take a break, Sam! The villain should have been given more thought. A flamboyant billionaire? Maybe a young British actor would have given it more credibility. Had it been an unassuming Bill Gates/Steve Jobs type, it would have been even better. But Sam Jackson reeks of insincerity. The film was begging for a more villainous antagonist.

There is a hint of a love interest as Eggsy is training with some of the other recruits. A young woman named Roxy, played by Sophia Cookson, strikes a bond with him as the rest of the recruits are too busy trying to get themselves ahead of the pack. Eggsy and Roxy are the only true team players, but their chemistry isn't given time to heat up. I kind of felt the inclusion of her into the story was a bit unnecessary seeing how it didn't really go anywhere. Even at the end, I'm sure I wasn't the only one in the audience wondering why Eggsy chose the princess over Roxy. Oh well, maybe I'm reading too much into the story.

It was as entertaining as anything else out there. Fun story, insanely great action, but a bit too indecisive with its own identity, and the violence was unexpected. I had a similar complaint about Kick-Ass a few years back. 6/10.

Fifty Shades of Grey

Maybe it was premature of me to turn down the role of Christian Grey. I mean, we're both Seattlites, both in the 25-40 year old demographic, both incredibly good-looking self-made billionaires. Okay, I'm not a self-made billionaire, but other than that, I'm pretty much a doppelganger. My thinking was that I would devastate a few dozen million women around the world if I took the role, but it turns out that Jamie Dornan did a pretty good job of that himself.

It was only a matter of time before E.L. James' mommy-porn sensation was adapted to film. You would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't live under a rock who hasn't heard of the scintillating best-selling trilogy, but I'll try to sum it up. Christian Grey is a 27 year old billionaire bachelor with a dirty sexual secret. Anastasia Steele is a virginal college graduate who falls into his web of debauchery, and the tables of power slowly turn in this classic Dominant meets Submissive tale. As she falls deeper into the dark world of Christian Grey's particular interests, and he falls under her innocent spell, they struggle to understand each other and both try desperately to get what they want. Will either of them win? Will either of them change? Read the whole trilogy to find out.

The rumor mill started flying as soon as the adaptation was announced, with director Sam Taylor-Johnson attached. She knows a thing or two about kinky sexual deviance by the way. She's currently 47, married to 24 year old Aaron Taylor-Johnson (together for 5 years - you do the math). Anyhow, there were dozens of names floated to play the roles, some more high profile than others (Emma Watson, Ian Somerhalder). Charlie Hunnan of Sons of Anarchy fame was attached for a bit, but dropped out due to a scheduling conflict. Enter Jamie Dornan. the Irishman took on the role and did a remarkably good job filling the ripped jeans of the iconic literary Lothario. Anastasia on the other hand, had to be someone without many inhibitions, and Dakota Johnson (Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith's daughter) quickly filled the role. She has gone on the record as telling her parents not to see the film, but what about the other fifty million Americans who will likely see it? That's dedication to her craft.

I must diverge at this point into two distinctive reviews. One, critiquing the film for its artfulness, the dialogue and story for quality, and the direction and acting on their own merits. This review won't be kind. The second however, is comparing and contrasting the film adaptation to its source material, and I have to say, I was impressed. Not a huge fan of erotica, I have to think that the translation must be uncomfortable, especially with a "Red Room of Pain" and countless "Laters, Baby" comments. Oh my. The film far exceeded my expectations, which were admittedly pretty low, and although predictable (lots of sex) it was done perhaps more tastefully than the story demanded (not very graphic sex). Rumor has it that Taylor-Johnson was pushing for an NC-17 rating, and the actors had to do re-shoots of some of the more intimate scenes because the emotions weren't convincing enough for her. The BDSM aspect (Bondage, Domination, Sadism, Masochism) takes a way back seat to the tension of the two characters and the undercurrents of a twisted love fantasy story. For fans of the rough stuff, you will likely be disappointed.

Lambasting the story would be too easy. The characters as well. They are idealized versions of the gender-specific sex symbols America has put upon society. He is ridiculously rich, confident, and demanding almost to the point of sexual assault. She is young, naive, virginal, and submissive. It reminds me of a film from 2002 called Secretary with James Spader and an up and coming Maggie Gyllenhaal. The controversy of the taboo sexual predilection of domination and submission is admittedly difficult to portray on the screen without some amount of discomfort, but honestly, Taylor-Johnson makes it pretty steamy and appealing despite the obvious character defects.

The follow-ups will certainly be made (50 Shades Darker, 50 Shades Freed) due to the impending box office victory. I overheard a couple of single women behind me gasping in the theatre, and immediately got out their cell phones to call their friends and tell them that they "Have to see it!" This will be the Titanic all over again, but without openly telling your friends you're seeing it a dozen times. Not me, but people I know. I only saw it twice. Fifty is carving a nice little niche for itself in cinema history, but the true question is if Dakota and Jamie (or Jamie's wife) are interested in riding this train for a few more years.

The actors do have good on-screen chemistry, although Dakota Johnson does most of the heavy lifting, and all of the nude work. Obviously the naysayers will condemn the film for its blatant message debasing young women, but come on people, this is erotica. Worse films have been made, and worse messages have been sent.

Ultimately, it is exactly what you would expect from a film of this nature. A rare instance where the film exceeds the book. The sex scenes are tastefully done, and the characters have more depth than the book intimates, particularly Anastasia Steele. I would have liked to have seen a bit more from the supporting cast, but when you order a steak, you don't complain about the asparagus on the side, right? You know you're curious, Fifty Shades will satisfy. Happy Valentine's Day. 7/10.

Jupiter Ascending

The Wachowskis are back, which hasn't really meant much since 2003's Matrix: Reloaded. After a string of disappointments (Matrix: Revolution, Speed Racer, Cloud Atlas), the highly anticipated and fantastically original Jupiter Ascending finally has arrived. Taking influence from Game of Thrones, The Fifth Element, and Star Wars, Jupiter has been involved in critical speculation, as its July 2014 release was pushed back to the cinematic wastelands of early February. Fortunately, the reality is that it's because of the meticulous detail that the Wachowskis put into post-production visual effects and not due to Warner Brothers lack of confidence.

The film starts in a familiar sci-fi way, with nobody Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) ruminating about her own origins and purpose. It's a tragic story that finds her living as an immigrant housekeeper in Chicago with an over-sized and nosy extended family crammed into close quarters. Not exactly squalor, but waking up before the rooster crows to clean toilets day in and day out gives us a quick character overview. Enter the visionary minds of the Wachowskis. Much like The Matrix, there is a veil lifted that exposes a much grander universe than what we know. An intergalactic royal family squabbles for control of the valuable resources on Earth, but the impediment is that Jupiter is identified as a Redundant; a perfect genetic match with the former queen of the galaxy, and rightful heir to the planet. Naturally, forces of good and evil collide to attempt to protect and destroy her, and lycantant Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) is sent to protect her. A genetically spliced human and wolf, he is also an albino and the runt of the litter, so he is an outcast from his warrior clan, enhancing his mystery and appeal. He dons incredible combat gear including hover-boots that defy gravity, allowing him to speed skate all around Chicago in what comprises some of the coolest sci-fi action sequences since Guardians of the Galaxy. We are introduced to a variety of alien creatures; both humanoid and dinosaur, and the futuristic technologies are dazzling on the screen. It's a visual buffet for your brain to feast on passively.

Impending Best Actor Oscar winner Eddie Redmayne plays the villain, Balem Abrasax with panache. An epic science fiction story needs a strong antagonist, and you can see the masterful acting at play through his emotions and soft, raspy voice. Tuppence Middleton and rising star Douglas Booth play Balem's siblings, Kalique and Titus, respectively, fighting for inter-planetary control. The incredible effects, costumes, characters, and absurd story ultimately make this quite an entertaining modern day fairy tale.

The magic of Jupiter Ascending is also its Achilles Heel. With such a creative and complex universe on display, there is just too much white noise surrounding the main characters. Imagine if the Lord of the Rings trilogy was condensed into a single two hour film. This is what Jupiter feels like. There are rich ideas and characters that just don't have enough time to develop, and the back stories deserve more attention than they are given. I'm not suggesting that this should be a trilogy, and I fully appreciate the various intricacies of the Abrasax dynasty, but by the time you understand the rules of the game, it's already over. This may have worked for The Matrix, but the ideas behind Jupiter Ascending are a bit too abstract. Through it all however, there is a simplicity to the story arc that is both familiar, yet satisfying.

Jupiter Ascending is ambitious to say the least, but there is too much going on for it to be great. Tatum again proves that he is a legitimate action star, and Mila Kunis has a natural wit and charm that carries this film out of the depths of disappointing. It is significantly better than I was expecting, but that isn't quite enough. This is a great escape for two hours, guaranteed to entertain. Keep an open mind, and just enjoy the ride. 6/10.