2017 Oscar Preview

It's a bit early for an Oscar prediction, right? Never. There are more than a handful of films over the coming three months that will likely enter the discussion for the coveted gold statues, but I am here to offer my pre-release prognostication, sight-unseen. Now, there have been a handful of valiant performances, and even a few good films so far in 2016. I'd like to reserve top ten status until a bit later in the year, but thus far none of them will command recognition come next March. What stands on the horizon are a fairly impressive docket of films from thespians and directors new and old. Some may sound familiar, some won't, but here is my fall preview.

August

August is typically a wasteland reserved for iffy blockbusters, some franchise tentpoles, and films that aren't easily classified. Two such films are "War Dogs" and "Don't Breathe". The former will likely break boundaries as an artistic action comedy biopic. At best, it will be on par with "The Big Short" and at worst, well, let's just say it could definitely be disappointing. The premise is intriguing, as is the director (Todd Phillips), and Miles Teller and Jonah Hill are exceptional actors when given the right project to work with. The latter might be the scariest film of the year, or it might just be another cliche gimmick. However, with a good director (Fede Alvarez) and one of my faves, Stephen Lang, I have high hopes for some edge-of-my seat scares. Gus Van Sant's long-gestating "Sea of Trees" is another one to keep on the radar, but the premise is depressing as hell. Walking into the woods to commit suicide? Wow. I could miss it, but with McConaughey, Van Sant, and Naomi Watts, it might turn some heads.

September

The Oscar buzz begins. "The Light Between Oceans" has gotten some attention, but again, depressing. I think it will fall off the radar after early praise. "Sully" might be the only September film to go the distance with perennial Best Actor darling Tom Hanks (Inferno won't do it), and Clint Eastwood behind the camera. I see this as what "Flight" could have been, and everyone loves a hero. Which is true except when it's mixed with action. "Deepwater Horizon" will be deeply entertaining, but Mark Wahlberg leaves much to be desired and Peter Berg is still hung up on action over real quality. Three other films pique my interest; "American Honey", "Denial", and "Goat". All for different reasons, I could see "Denial" sticking around on critics' top ten lists if it reaches its potential.

October

The real quality films begin coming out. October brings us "Birth of a Nation", "The Accountant", "American Pastoral", and "Moonlight". I could see "Birth of a Nation", which is a semi-true account of the Nat Turner rebellion, gaining some serious looks both because of the content, and as a pendulum swing in the aftermath of the uber-white Hollywood debacle last year. Think "12 Years a Slave". Its problem may be the whole written/directed/starring problem, and Nate Parker's current rape allegations from when he was in college. "The Accountant" gives me pause. I have high hopes, but the director is Gavin O'Connor. "Miracle" and "Warrior" were great films, but I see him as more of a lightweight film maker. I hope I'm wrong, it looks very entertaining.

November

I will be very busy in November. I count four potential Best Picture Oscar films: "Loving" is my current number two. An interracial couple is sentenced to prison in 1950's Virginia for their marriage, directed by Jeff Nichols ("Midnight Special", "Mud", "Take Shelter"). He's flying under the radar as a high quality writer/director, but "Loving" will change that. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" is Ang Lee's new baby. The story and acting may not be the most compelling this year, but Ang Lee always has some tricks up his sleeve; this time filming with a frame rate of 120 frames per second. For reference, "Avatar" was filmed at 24 fps, and "The Hobbit" trilogy broke new territory with 30. This film has been hailed as the dawning of a new era of film making from a technical standpoint, so I would highly recommend 3D IMAX on this one, which I don't do very often. It will be a worthwhile cinematic experience. "Manchester by the Sea" is another one I'm hearing good things about. Still a bit mysterious to me (fly me to special screenings already, Hollywood) it stars Casey Affleck as a man who inherits his brother's son after he dies. It should have the acting covered with Michelle Williams and Kyle Chandler co-starring, and is directed by Kenneth Lonergan, who is a bit inexperienced, but ironically won the "most overlooked film" award among others in 2011 for "Margaret". Rounding out the quality, there is "Bleed for This" which will likely land Miles Teller in the Best Actor grouping, "Hacksaw Ridge" which is a bit of a sleeper, but has potential, "Elle", "Nocturnal Animals", "Rules Don't Apply", and "Allied" all are on my radar as well.

December

Besides "Star Wars", I am probably most interested in "Passengers" with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. The film has been on the Hollywood Black List (hottest scripts that haven't been done yet), and it has potential for a "Gravity" amount of success, certainly it will do well at the box office. Its biggest problem is opening the week after "Rogue One", but that shouldn't be too much of a problem around Christmas. "La La Land", "Collateral Beauty", "Fences", "Gold", and "20th Century Women", and "Silence" are all going to be potential contenders, but I'm calling it now. The Best Picture of the year will be "The Founder" and Michael Keaton will bring home the coveted gold after just narrowly missing out with "Birdman". This will mark his third year in a row being one of the leads in the Best Picture winner, and will solidify him as a viable if not exceptional leading man. I've always liked him anyhow, but it's really nice to see him getting his due. The Weinsteins have pushed it back from August to December because of the possibilities for awards, and with Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch playing the McDonald brothers, and Keaton as Ray Kroc, I think a lot of people will frown upon McDonalds after seeing the real story.

Best Picture Nominees

The sure thing nominees in my eyes are "The Founder", "Loving", "The Birth of a Nation", "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk", and "Manchester by the Sea". The second tier contenders will be "The Light Between Oceans", "Sully", "Allied", "La La Land", "Moonlight" and "Nocturnal Animals". The winner will be "The Founder".

Which films am I most excited to see? Easy. "Passengers", "Arrival", "The Founder", and of course, "Rogue One". I like to make my predictions early for plausible deniability of accuracy, but also to say that I called it back before anyone else. Like the Mariners winning the World Series this October. And the Seahawks in 2017. Good luck to all, and email me with your thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Suicide Squad

DC and Warner Bros. find themselves in a mad scramble to catch up with the Marvel juggernaut, and I for one thought that “Suicide Squad” would help them in their efforts. It didn’t. In fact, this can only set them back farther after the disappointing “Batman vs Superman” in the spring. We have to hold out for next year’s “Wonder Woman” for any hope of superhero salvation, and by that time, the pressure will be very high.

For those who haven’t heard, “Suicide Squad” is a team of little known bad guys who are pulled out of prison and forced to work together under the most dangerous of circumstances. Presumably these are missions that the US military can’t handle, but I’ll get to that in a bit. Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) is the brainchild of this proposal, and no sooner than she pitches the idea does it become almost critical that they assemble.

Writer/Director David Ayer (“Fury”, “Sabotage”, “End of Watch”, “Training Day”) was given the keys to his daddy’s Porsche in this $175 million film that doesn’t even have a mainstream character, and he wrecked it going 20 miles per hour. Shame. Batman makes a brief appearance in a couple of inconsequential scenes, including the mid-credits interlude that is becoming all the rage in superhero flicks, but the highlight of “Batman vs Superman” couldn’t even save this film. Ayer even let Jared Leto forge a new Joker, but the iconic performance by Heath Ledger sadly haunts any effort on Leto’s part. It was doomed from the start. Besides over-acting, and being more thuggish than insane, the Joker’s role in this film is far too peripheral anyway. It’s gimmicky, but he isn’t given enough screen time to be effective.

This assortment of villains has a range of abilities, or non-abilities, which made the movie pointless right off the bat. Captain Boomerang, Slipknot, Killer Croc, and Harley Quinn bring absolutely no value to a fight against anyone or anything that is armed. Rick Flagg and Katana are the minders of the squad, and even they aren’t impressive, even when the bullets start to fly. I guess I was expecting more interesting characters from a character-driven vehicle.

Will Smith highjacks the film as Deadshot even though there are more interesting characters lurking in the shadows behind him. He is given almost as much screen time as Margot Robbie’s backside in tight shorts, which are the true star of the bunch, but Smith just doesn’t play well with others, so I assume he needed to be playing the anti-hero.

The real problem is the identity crisis that the film has. Billed as a group of bad guys, they kept having to remind us who was good and who was bad because they just became too nice and likable over time. They even started working as a team, and growing consciences. It is a team flick, but it wasn’t supposed to have a happy vibe. The second problem I had with the film is the story. It is terrible. Like really, really bad. Let’s just march these characters down a street and let them fight whatever comes up. Baseball bats, boomerangs, crocodile hands. Don’t worry that the US military could just send in a Seal team and handle this, let’s take a big risk on this group of bad guys with no experience and really bad attitudes. And just to remind you, they are really bad. The plot saddened the superhero movie fan in me even more than Brandon Routh’s “Superman Returns” back in 2006.

What I would have done differently for starters is to make this an R-rated film. Marvel’s “Deadpool” broke the mold in the spring with the not-so-family-friendly film, and it worked out great for them; critically and at the box office. Suicide Squad was supposed to be DC’s answer to a more violent superhero movie, which would be great given the natural tone of DC comic films anyhow. Give it a try, the target audience doesn’t shift much when you go from PG-13 to R, and there would be much more leeway for David Ayer to create the film he probably wanted. Violence, nudity, language. It would have fit in this case. If it made hundreds of millions (which it would have and will anyway), try it again, something different. My inkling is that Will Smith, DC, and Warner Bros. had a bit more skin in the game than Ayer did, and so they won in the end. It’s a shame. Ayer is a talented writer, but I’m not sure his directing is on par with his contemporaries.

In the end, there was too much nonsense going on to warrant enjoyment. The film started too fast, progressed too slowly, and ended painfully. Will Smith had to drop his Will Smith one liners. Jared Leto is no Heath Ledger, and let’s just say Batman, Superman, Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg, and Wonder Woman (no Green Lantern?) don’t have to worry about these clowns causing too much havoc. 3/10.

Jason Bourne

Matt Damon returns for the fourth time as the twenty-first century James Bond, Jason Bourne. The commercial success of the franchise demanded a return, and I will tell you, Bourne is back in a big way.

Discounting 2012’s “Bourne Legacy” which starred Jeremy Renner in the titular role, it has been nine years since the icon of modern espionage has graced us with his screen presence. The subtle master of cat and mouse has come out of hiding to find answers to his own questions in the midst of a global Wikileaks-sized security breach.

The CIA is hot on his tail, led by Tommy Lee Jones as the director of the covert agency. He is the latest in a long line of distinguished actors who have gone up against Damon in this franchise, and things haven’t gone well for any of them. Vincent Cassell also joins the cast as “The Asset”, a cold-blooded assassin with reasons of his own for hunting Bourne.

The whole gang is back together behind the scenes. Paul Greengrass directs his third entry, Tony Gilroy writes his fifth (he also directed “Legacy”), and Doug Liman is back on board as an executive producer (he directed the first film and produced the others). As you can imagine, there is a lot more of the same. The character is the draw and always will be, so we see high-tech espionage, exotic European locations, and lots of backstabbing and double dealing. Of course, Jason Bourne is above it all, outsmarting every single person on the planet. But that’s the fun, isn’t it? Seeing how he’ll get out of jam after jam.

Greengrass is a natural for this type of film, and he has a prior connection to Damon in 2010’s “Green Zone”. He was the director behind “Captain Phillips” and “United 93” both films I would highly recommend as well done bio-pics. His trademark handheld camera style can be a bit unsettling at times, particularly when there is a lot going on on-screen. That is really the only gripe I have with the direction.

Gilroy delivers a story that picks up right where the last one left off in terms of tone and pacing. Two incredible chase sequences bookend what is the most linear and simple entry in the series yet. I found the complex nature of the first three a bit frustrating when trying to enjoy the film without necessitating reflection, but this one is ripe for immediate consumption and enjoyment.

Two problems I had with the film, and neither is overtly damaging of an enjoyable viewing experience. First; Oscar-winning actress, and Hollywood’s hottest female Alicia Vikander plays the CIA Head of Cyber Surveillance, Heather Lee. Would a twenty-eight-year-old who looks like she is twenty really find herself at the top of an intelligence agency at that young of an age? It didn’t work for me, and played into the commentary and criticism that as Hollywood leading men keep aging, the leading ladies stay the same age. There is some credence to that.

The second problem I had was the need to parallel Apple’s battle with the NSA using implication that shady government is recruiting the private sector to do their dirty work with the intention of destroying privacy, all in the name of security. It’s a little too soon after the San Bernadino shooting to bring that piece of non-fiction into the narrative.

Assuming Damon is interested in taking on the role for a fifth time, you can count on another installment within the next few years. With a nearly $5 million Thursday night opening, and projected $50-60 million opening weekend, it will be a worthwhile investment for the team of Greengrass, Gilroy, and Limon as well. It is a bit redundant, but If you are looking for action, and a bit of a trip down memory lane without the multifarious names, places, and black ops files to remember, you will definitely enjoy Jason Bourne. Again. 8/10.

Ghostbusters

Some call it sacrilege. Some call it a feminist ploy. Some say that the hallowed original from 1984 has somehow been tarnished or desecrated as if it were some work of art held to a higher level of reverence than say, “Total Recall”, “Robocop”, or “Judge Dredd”. We live in a cinematic age where originality isn’t profitable unless a name like James Cameron is attached. Reboots, superheroes, young adult fiction adaptations, sequels, and disaster films rule the roost. Incredibly, eighteen of the top twenty-two highest grossing films of all time are franchise sequels, reboots, or spinoffs (boxofficemojo.com). “Titanic”, “Avatar”, “Frozen”, and “Jurassic Park” are the exceptions by the way (and a whopping sixty-eight of the top one hundred are sequels, reboots, or spinoffs).

The fact that “Ghostbusters” is an all-female cast, and comes thirty-two years after the original in no way diminishes its value. Set as a true remake with familiar plot, archetypes, and spooky, comedic spirit as the original, I see it as capitalist homage; an opportunity to take a cherished and beloved brand, and bring it in to the twenty-first century with a fresh, new look. There will be sequel(s).

Erin (Kristin Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) headline as the Aykroyd and Ramis characters, while Patty (Leslie Jones) and Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) are Hudson and Murray. If you didn’t follow that last sentence, you probably aren’t a fan of the original, in which case you might not get the numerous references and cameos that further pay tribute to the original. “Ghostbusters” is a who’s who of “Saturday Night Live” and “MADtv” alumni that add what must have been a good deal of improvisation to the witty and sharp dialogue and physical comedy.

Wiig and McCarthy sadly have had their fifteen minutes of fame. They rely on the same old shtick, which has its moments, but is a bit overdone and took away a little from the real joy; McKinnon and Hemsworth. McKinnon’s character is ripe with Bill Murrayesque lines and idiosyncrasies. She is the beating heart of the team of ghostbusters and keeps this film on its game even though on paper this is the Wiig and McCarthy show. Hemsworth is hilarious as Kevin, the beefcake receptionist. His idiocy is so absurd that it is laugh-out-loud funny and shows a side of him that we haven’t really seen before. He shouldn’t quit his day job (Thor), but has more range than I would have given him credit for, although the writers and director certainly had a lot to do with that.

Director Paul Feig (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) has a successful relationship with McCarthy vehicles since her scorching foray on the scene in “Bridesmaids”. He is squeezing every last drop of comedy out of her, and I would say she’s just about dry. As long as her films make money, I am technically wrong, but her humor is getting a little stale for my taste. His films will likely find the audiences shelling over their cash, but I would like to see him step out of his wheelhouse and try something a bit less predictable.

Written by Feig and Kate Dippold (most notably “Parks and Recreation”), the plot is cookie-cutter, but as a remake, the job is mostly done for them already. The dialogue and characters are the meat of the film and with quick pacing, iconic cameos, and a fun atmosphere, it was a recipe for success.

We get to relive the glory days with some pretty awesome cameos, but the one I was hoping to see just didn’t make his appearance. I’ll give you a hint; he’s the key master and he accidentally shrunk his kids once upon a time. Anyhow, you will be pleasantly surprised at the comfort and familiarity of the story. I found myself smiling quite a bit, and although it did go on a bit too long, the visual effects leave the original in the dust. There is something to be said about nostalgia, cheesy effects and all, but the new “Ghostbusters” truly is improved in many ways. I loved the original, but I was pleasantly impressed with this new look. 7/10

Independence Day: Resurgence

Twenty years ago, on the 4th of July, Earth had to fight for its independence against an alien invasion. I was a high schooler, and remember the awe of the special effects mixed in with some pretty cool one liners; Will Smith in his early glory, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman showing that you don’t necessarily need an A-list actor to carry a blockbuster, and the ushering in of a new genre of film that has left a massive impression on the film industry.

Director Roland Emmerich is who I would consider the Godfather of next generation disaster films. Since “Independence Day”, he has treated us to a variety of earth-shattering experiences, but none were quite as epic and ambitious as the alien invasion that started it all (besides “Twister” which opened about two months earlier, that really started it all).

Well, twenty years later, the next generation, armed with space alien technology has arrived to once again protect the masses from the calamity of an even bigger, badder invasion. One can only imagine what “Independence Day 3” has in store for us (spoiler alert?). Humans have come together in a global effort to fight back, planning for the inevitable return ever since Randy Quaid rammed his jet up the mothership’s tailpipe. Technology is humming thanks to the incident; we have a Moon base, a global satellite defense system, enhanced transportation, and a stronger military. Alien technology seems to make progress move faster.

Will Smith is noticeably absent this time around, but nearly every other survivor from the first film is back, including Vivica A. Fox. Adding youth to the cast are the other Hemsworth (it’s hard to take him seriously knowing he’s going to marry Miley Cyrus), Maika Monroe (“It Follows”) as the former First Daughter, and Jesse T. Usher as Captain Hillard (Will Smith’s progeny). Sela Ward ruins a ripe role as the current President with wooden and emotionless dialogue, and William Fichtner tries his hardest to keep the audience engaged and caring as General Adams, but his efforts are fruitless.

Jeff Goldblum and Judd Hirsch continue their father/son routine, but it is much less playful and more obligatory. The survival and peril seems to take on an almost comedic vibe that ruins any sort of tension that may have existed in the first place.

What I did enjoy about the film is the duplication of the tone and mood of the first film. The dialogue is light and the action is virtually nonstop with absolutely no pretense of any sort of seriousness. Come for the popcorn and action, leave feeling a little bit patriotic. I suppose that’s the goal.
What makes it more difficult to digest as an adult, however, is that the characters aren’t developed even a smidge. For some reason, everyone is an excellent pilot, but beyond that, they are terribly shallowly written. Each scene is rushed just a tad too much so there is no time to savor the visual effects that are feeding a constant stream of ocular sugar into your eyes. The alien ships are fantastic, and the battles must have cost a fortune at the digital effects lab. There’s even a pretty cool destruction scene that although would have killed tens of millions of people, looks pretty cool on the screen. I know you’re not supposed to think about the collateral damage, but I can’t help it.

The writers (Nicolas Wright and James Woods), who will be collaborating again with Emmerich on the upcoming “Stargate” reboot (don’t even get me started) seem to have wanted this to be bigger than it really needed to be, and bigger than it had the capacity for. It is overflowing with stand-alone scenes that set up incredible trailers and feed a fantastical imagination, but I found myself unable to immerse myself into the story because of the lack of focus.

You can bet it’s a mish mash of recycled attempts at emotional pull, and to be honest, the 11-15-year-old crowd will go crazy for it. It’s great to see some of the old faces back in harm’s way twenty years later, but in the end it just wasn’t very satisfying for me. Go see it if you liked the first and are in need of a blockbuster fix, but don’t expect an improvement on the original. 5/10.

Warcraft

The film based on the global massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) of the same name, “Warcraft” is an ambitious project on the scale of something like “Lord of the Rings”. The budget, writing/directing experience, and source material drastically lowers expectations, but even so, what unfolds on screen is a bit of a mess.

Let me preface this by saying it’s never a good sign when you doze off in the middle of the movie. It’s also not a good sign when you doze off and don’t miss anything important. Part of the problem with “Warcraft” is that one who isn’t familiar with the game is completely lost. There is no attempt to convey any insider information to the viewer, we just jump in and get to the story, which doesn’t fuel intrigue one bit.

Fortunately, (and unfortunately), there isn’t much to the narrative. Giant Orcs cross dimensions through a portal that is fed by the souls of battle-captured foes. The unsuspecting humans (and I think there were some other creatures in this realm, but we’re never really explained much in this regard) take up arms and do battle to preserve their kingdom, following the warrior/King’s brother-in-law, Anduin Lothar, played by Travis Fimmel, into an all-out rumble for terrestrial supremacy. Throw in some mystical powers that are a bit cliché and misguided in Ben Foster’s Medhiv and Ben Schnetzer’s Khadgar, and there is utter confusion about the extent of rules of this particular universe. Paula Patton plays the eye candy as the half-breed, Garona, who doesn’t really fit anywhere, and thinking about the two species breeding makes me wonder “How?” even more than “Why?” Was the male an Orc, or the female? I’m not sure which is worse.

Director Duncan Jones (“Moon”, “Source Code”) gives a valiant effort for his first true big budget blockbuster, and his choice of project is paying dividends in spades internationally, particularly China. I suspect that given the ending of the film as well as the reception, we will see a series spawn from the film, although I won’t be participating in viewing of any subsequent films.

Despite all of its very noticeable problems, I greatly admire the CGI and the vision of the Orcs. The giant beings with toothy upward-pointing fangs are meticulously rendered, looking like a bunch of Incredible Hulks running around flexing their oversized muscles with their knuckle-dragging testosterone. Toby Kebbel gives Andy Serkis a run for his money as the best motion-capture actor around as the Orc chieftain, Durotan. After his performance in the “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” back in 2014, he proves again that he is more than capable of bringing to life the emotions of a hybrid Neanderthal-simian creature.

Beyond the Orcs, the acting was pedestrian and the rest of the creatures and landscapes seemed rushed and done on the cheap. There were scenes that just seemed sloppy. A flying Griffin was kind of cool, but I felt like I was brought back to 1984, watching Atreyu riding Falkor through the clouds in terms of cinematic quality. I wasn’t impressed. Likewise, with the Orcs riding giant wolves. Or dogs? Whatever they were, they weren’t nearly as seamless or detailed as they could have been.

Essentially, “Warcraft” is an opportunity to capitalize on a global video game phenomenon and nothing more. It clearly lacks creativity or originality, but I suppose that’s part of the challenge that Duncan Jones faced in the first place. The market is already established, and it was inevitable that it would become a film at some point in time, so I can’t blame the studio for trying. At the height of the game’s popularity, this may have been a stronger film, but for the uninitiated, it just lacks the quality to be enjoyable a la carte. Skip the film unless you’re a veteran Warcraft player and even so, you will probably be disappointed. 3/10.