Birdman soared! Boyhood snubbed! 2015 Oscar Reaction by Matt Harrison

I wanted to better my score of 16/24 from last year. I got 19/24 categories right, so I am very happy!

A result that the statistics pointed towards that I simply refused to accept, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) rose above all else to claim the two most prestigious Academy Awards: Best Director and Best Picture. Many, including myself, predicted a two-way split between Inarritu's tale of a washed up movie actor trying to realise his artistic value and self importance and Linklater's coming off age, 12 year passion project Boyhood. However, Birdman soared and claimed both prizes in what may turn out to be one of the biggest snubs in recent history.

I loved the movie Birdman, make no mistake, even more so than Boyhood, but I am genuinely surprised with the way the Academy decided to go. Boyhood won the Golden Globe and the BAFTA and looked like an unstoppable force on its quest for Best Picture glory. However, gaining momentum at the last minute with numerous Guild Award victories came the dark comedy Birdman who, in the end, crushed all before it.

I find it funny how the film can win Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay without a Best Actor triumph, as Michael Keaton's brilliant performance was the literal and metaphorical heart beat of the film. Nevertheless, Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of Stephen Hawking which saw him change his physical performance countlessly as his character's health deteriorated was a worthy winner. There were no surprises with the other Acting categories; Moore, Arquette and Simmons were all predictable, yet very deserving, winners.

That was to be the only win for Boyhood on a night where people were predicting a double hall for the film. The other 2 big winners of the night were The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson's dreamlike comedy/drama stealing 4 awards in the "art direction categories") and Whiplash (Damien Chazelle's thriller taking 3 ranging from acting, editing and sound). All other 4 nominees for Best Picture took awards.

Below are some of the categories I got wrong, and I'll try to reason as to why:




Best Picture - Birdman (Boyhood)


I thought the Academy would recognise the 12 year effort and give the grand prize to Boyhood. But, Birdman is a film all about an artists self importance and is all about the movie industry (acting, directing, critiquing etc.) Because it is a film about film making, I have a feeling the Academy were swayed by this. It's a worthy winner, if not a controversial one.


Best Original Screenplay - Birdman (The Grand Budapest Hotel)


The Academy usually goes for the most original, wacky and creative film for this award. But I did not predict the Birdman juggernaut to be in full force, so I predicted incorrectly. Again, Birdman is a worthy claimant for this award, but The Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler and Boyhood would've also been welcome winners.


Best Film Editing - Whiplash (Boyhood)


I thought Boyhood would win Best Picture, so I thought it would have editing in the bag. With 12 years of footage to collate and coherently organise, it would have been a worthy winner. Whiplash has astonishing editing, and was the choice I would have given had I gone with my heart and not my head.


Best Original Score - The Grand Budapest Hotel (The Theory of Everything)


Because Alexandre Desplat was nominated for both "Budapest" and "Imitation", I thought he would split the vote and Johan Johansson would swoop in with his sombre melody for "Theory". "Budapest" may well have been my second choice to win this award.


Best Animated Feature Film - Big Hero 6 (How to Train your Dragon 2)


The fact that The Lego Movie wasn't even one of the 5 up for this category makes my blood boil. I went with "Dragon" as I thought they'd award its mature themes and excellent animation. Ultimately, "Dragon" was a sequel whereas Big Hero 6 was not and that's what gave it the edge on the night. I like Big Hero 6 don't get me wrong, but "Dragon" would've been a more worthy recipient in my eyes.




Despite being very unhappy with the lack of nominations for certain films (The Lego Movie, Interstellar, Nightcrawler, Gone Girl) I was happy with who won what award. There were a lot of surprises which I couldn't predict coupled with the seemingly tightest race in years, which played out to be not as tight as we all thought. Its not often you correctly predict Best Live Action, Animated and Documentary Short without guessing what Best Picture was going to be, but that just shows you how much I know!

Hope you all enjoyed the Academy Awards and here's to another 12 months of excellent filmmaking!

Thanks for reading,
Matt

"Boyman!" 2015 Oscar Predictions by Matt Harrison

Boyhood vs. Birdman, Linklater vs. Inarritu is shaping up to be the closest Oscar race in years, so much so that I've spent days trying to finalise my predictions for the 87th Academy Awards in all 24 categories. I predicted 16/24 last year, this year (despite it being a lot harder to predict) I want to beat that score:

Best Actor in a leading role - Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)


Best Actress in a leading role - Julianne Moore (Still Alice)


Best Actor in a supporting role - JK Simmons (Whiplash)


Best Actress in a supporting role - Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)


Best Cinematography - Birdman


Best Animated Feature Film - How to Train your Dragon 2


Best Costume Design - The Grand Budapest Hotel


Best Documentary Feature - Citizenfour


Best Documentary Short - Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1


Best Film Editing - Boyhood


Best Foreign Language Film - Ida (Poland)


Best Makeup and Hairstyling - The Grand Budapest Hotel


Best Music Original Score - The Theory of Everything


Best Music Original Song - "Glory" from Selma


Best Production Design - The Grand Budapest Hotel


Best Animated Short Film - Feast


Best Live Action Short Film - The Phone Call


Best Sound Editing - American Sniper


Best Sound Mixing - Whiplash


Best Visual Effects - Interstellar


Best Adapted Screenplay - The Imitation Game


Best Original Screenplay - The Grand Budapest Hotel



and the last 2 were decided on a coin toss (it's really that close)...



Best Directing - Alejandro G Inarritu (Birdman)


Best Picture - Boyhood




So many of these categories were ridiculously close with at least 3 potential winners in each one. Whatever happens, I would not be surprised if either Birdman or Boyhood take both the major prizes, or if they happen to split the awards either way. It's going to be a very close race.


Thanks for reading,
Matt

Jupiter Ascending Movie Review

Ever walk out of a film and ask yourself, "Why did that happen?"

Jupiter Ascending is the latest movie from the Wachowski's and stars Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Sean Bean and Eddie Redmayne. Mila Kunis' character Jupiter is the heir to something very important in the universe, and a corrupt feuding family will do anything in their power to make sure she can not retrieve it. To summarise, I really was not a fan of this movie and I finally understand why it was pushed to a February release; it's a colossal mess.

If you know me, you should know that I love science fiction action movies. The Wachowski's, despite their recent run of form, still directed one of my all time favourite films within that genre, the Matrix. Plus, I'm a fan of almost every big name actor who signed on to create this film. I should've loved this movie, instead I found myself almost falling asleep in an uninteresting, un-engaging melodrama who's faults lie solely with the screenplay and the writing.

While both Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum do their best with the roles they have and end up both being functional at worst, their characters simply are not interesting because they're surrounded by poor writing. For example, within the first 30 minutes Mila Kunis has witnessed a lot of life-changing paranormal, alien activity, and her reaction to all of it is stupidly unrealistic. She just goes along with it, hardly questioning anything. Her character throughout the film is faced with some tough, earth-shattering decisions which will alter the future of the Earth and all humanity, but she fails to convey any emotion at all.

But the most annoying thing about Jupiter Ascending was the lack of a strong female lead. All Mila Kunis does throughout the movie is make dumb decisions and then has to sit and wait for elf-eared Channing Tatum to rescue her, because she is incapable of doing anything herself. I'm disappointed with the Wachowski's in that sense; why they can't write a strong female lead I don't know.

Eddie Redmayne, on the brink of winning an Oscar for his mesmerising and committed portrayal of Stephen Hawking, delivers one of the worst acting performances in recent memory as the film's primary antagonist. I don't know why, but for some reason his character talks like a raspy 90 year old with a sore throat. His motivations as a villain are also one-note, goofy Hollywood cheese; he wants power, yay!

While the Wachowski's deliver some jaw dropping visual effects and an adrenaline inducing action sequence early on in the film, the rest of the film's visual quality becomes inconsistent. The rest of the action sequences play out generically and at times it feels like you're being water-boarded by a barrage of light and sound effects. The character designs of some of the aliens are laughable as well, ranging from crocodile dude with wings to midget elephant co pilot. It's hysterical.

Jupiter Ascending could have been a success with the talent involved and the visual scope it could have offered. It could've been a fun space adventure. Instead we get a film with poor storytelling, generic characters, rehashed action sequences and dialogue ranging from boring and bogged down in exposition to developing an extremely forced, cringe-worthy romance. It was boring, uninteresting and un-impactful, and a huge disappointment:


Rating - D

Thanks for reading,
Matt

Spiderman OFFICIALLY a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe!!

Today has been a good day!

Credit to the Marvel Cinematic Universe Facebook page for this fantastic image which pretty much sums up everything I'm about to say. A few months ago I posted an article which asked the question "Will Spiderman return to Marvel?". I said in that article that I didn't think he would. I was wrong. But on this occasion, I am glad I was wrong.

The official announcement states that the distribution and the majority of creative control lies with Sony, who still hold onto the rights to the character. However, the character of Spiderman is confirmed to appear within Marvel's Cinematic Universe, appearing amongst characters such as Iron Man and Captain America.

Marvel's Kevin Feige and Sony's Amy Pascal will co produce a new Spiderman film set to come out on July 28th 2017. Sony will still have the majority of the creative control but the stories of this film and future Spidey flicks will take place within the same continuity as the Avenger's films. This also means that he is set to appear in multiple MCU films, and MCU characters are likely to feature in his.

So to summarise my thoughts on this I am over the fucking moon. Something that only yesterday seemed like a far off dream has now finally become a reality. It is almost too good to be true.

Marvel also stated that Spiderman will likely appear first in a film within the MCU. We know that the new untitled Spiderman film (July 28th 2017) is an MCU film should it take place within the same continuity, but I think they mean he will appear in a production produced mainly by Marvel. This can surely only mean one thing...

 

 

... we will see Spiderman in Civil War. He won't be in Age of Ultron although Easter eggs may hint at him. He won't be in Ant Man, Doctor Strange or Guardians 2. Therefore, if he is to appear before his solo film, Civil War is the obvious choice.

What is also interesting is how Marvel has now changed its Phase 3 line-up with Spidey's inclusion, which possibly changes the narrative dynamic of the entire cinematic universe.


July 28th 2017 - Spiderman

November 3rd 2017 - Thor: Ragnarok

May 4th 2018 - Avengers: Infinity War part 1

July 6th 2018 - Black Panther

November 2nd 2018 - Captain Marvel

May 3rd 2019 - Avengers: Infinity War part 2

July 12th 2019 - The Inhumans


With Andrew Garfield's expected departure confirmed, Marvel and Sony are on the look out for the next Peter Parker. But, who should play him? I believe that names like Jamie Dornan, Dylan O'Brien and Logan Lerman will be thrown around, but I honestly think giving the role to an "unknown" could be just as effective and work just as well.

Who do you think should play the webslinger, and are you happy with this news?


Thanks for reading,
Matt

Selma Movie Review

My Best Picture countdown comes to an end with my long awaited viewing of Selma...

Selma is directed by Ava DuVernay and stars David Oyelowo and essentially tells the story of how Martin Luther King campaigned for the right for black people to vote by staging a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. While it has gained unanimous praise from critics and scored a Best Picture nomination, people have been disappointed that Oyelowo and DuVernay were snubbed at the Oscars. I have to admit that this disappointment has been justified.

David Oyelowo's performance as Martin Luther King is so good and so refined that he actually becomes the glue that binds this film together, and whenever he is not on screen and time is devoted fully to supporting characters, Selma is not at its best. Oyelowo nails everything in terms of dramatic weight and emotion, but he also transforms himself into this character through the various mannerisms and speech patterns he adopts. He became what I understood Martin Luther King was.

But what I loved the most about Selma was how it never victimised or villainized its characters. Selma showed us Martin Luther King the man, not Martin Luther King the American icon and revolutionary activist. While the film was about prejudice against black people and general racist attitudes that prevented black people from voting, for me it never made one skin colour the "good guys" and the other "the bad". As I said, Selma shows us Martin Luther King the man, with all of his flaws and imperfections. It didn't portray the white man as evil, it actually showed some white people joining in with the march. I really appreciate it when films do this with their characters, unlike in some films where there's a clear agenda being set with its good and evil characters *cough* AMERICAN SNIPER *cough*.

Selma creeps up on you emotionally and dramatically. It keeps you engaged with its characters and the acting performances are all good to fantastic. It also is a film, that for me, continues to get better the more and more I think about it. It isn't a film which requires hundreds of viewings, but it's both entertaining and immersive, which is all you want, and this is thanks to Ava DuVernay's direction.

DuVernay directs this film with a surprising amount of style while still maintaining the film's emotional substance. The cinematography is intimate and synonymously grand. Focus and lighting used for close up shots are also utilised brilliantly. Also, printed text on the screen is used in the film in a way which did not feel like a gimmick. I'm usually one to bash films for doing just that, but Selma did not bother me at all.

What did bother me was the use of super slow motion. There'd be an effective dramatic scene playing out and then it would just cut to slo mo all of a sudden. Don't get me wrong I love me a bit of slo mo, but in Selma it detracted the tension and the drama to the point where omitting it would've been more effective.

As I said I don't think its a film which requires multiple viewings and it isn't for the casual movie goers. But if you like a well told dramatic story with some Oscar calibre acting, then you should check out Selma if you haven't done so already.


Rating - B+

Thanks for reading,
Matt