2015 Best Picture Nominees, ranked:
Overall, this was a very solid set of nominees. Not a bad or mediocre film to be found! But, there were some I thought more highly of than others...
#1: Mad Max: Fury Road (*****)
Originally posted on 11-7-15
I should probably wait until the hype and excitement over this movie has died down before trying to place it in the hierarchy of action movies. Right now, my temptation is to proclaim it one of the best action movies, easily joining the ranks of Terminator 2, Die Hard, Aliens, Total Recall, and Hardboiled. It might be that good.
Of course, if you're not into action movies, you're in the wrong place. This is a movie for people who want to see crazy fighting. There's more to the movie than that, but much of the plot and thematic meaning is below the surface, hidden among non-stop chase scenes, shootouts, and car stunts. But boy oh boy does the action in this movie rock my socks! The editing, filming, choreography, visual palette, and sheer imagination and kinetic energy is mind-blowing. Never does the action settle for doing just one thing... George Miller seems to have thought of everything that can be done in a car chase. The film makes use of real stunts and cars as much as possible, combining the realism of old school movies with the slickness of newer movies.
A common criticism of this movie is that it has no plot. I disagree. Fury Road has at least an average amount of plot for an action movie. What it does differently than most movies is that it uses subtext and visual storytelling instead of explicit dialogue embellishing on the plot. An interesting point of contrast is this year's Jurassic World, a movie in which every character shares every thought they have, often without any narrative purpose. In Fury Road, the characters share very little about themselves, but we get the story from their reactions (often non-verbal) and decisions. I don't want to make this movie out to be “deep”, but I will argue that the film gives a lot of personality to its characters and relationships without having to explain them. A great example is the character of Nux, a crazy warboy who speaks only in fragmented English, but quickly conveys in one brief scene that (1) he's dying of cancer, (2) he's desperately seeking a resurrected life by appeasing Immortan Joe, and (3) he is deeply moved by the fact that one of Joe's prized “breeders” shows concern for him.
Much has been made about the “battle-of-the-sexes” feminist aspect of the plot. It's there, but it's handled well as an angle for a science fiction story, rather than some thinly veiled political piece. There's also a bit of nuance: The matriarchal biker gang is met with some disapproval (“You kill people? … I thought you girls were above all that.”) and it is ultimately Max who convinces them to liberate the slaves of the Citadel.
The only criticism I have is that Tom Hardy doesn't command the role of Max the way Mel Gibson did. At first I thought this was simply because he doesn't have much dialogue, but Max doesn't talk much in The Road Warrior either. Regardless, Fury Road is an excellent action movie. This is the type of exquisite film-making that those silly “Fast and Furious” movies desperately need.
#2: Room (**** and a half)
In highschool we're often taught about Plato's allegory of “The Cave”, which describes prisoners who know nothing of the outside world. Room is basically The Cave, and I'd almost suggest that you stop reading this review right there and go see it, knowing nothing else about the movie. Actually, go do that, OK?
…
Anyway, Room's version of The Cave is used as a metaphor for childhood. As children, we have limited perception of the world around us, and no concept of the world before our memory. We wake up in the middle of a story, perhaps never really understanding our own narrative in its full context. The boy in Room has only known the confines of a windowless garden shed. As far as he knows, there is no outside world, and “Ma” just sat around waiting for him to arrive. He can't even comprehend the truth, that he is a prisoner in a tiny space, born to a kidnapped teenage sex slave. When Ma tells him her story, the boy doesn't believe it, and becomes angry at the introduction of radical new ideas into his preconceived notion of reality. When he has to join the outside world, he's nearly blinded by the sun, and unsure whether he likes this chaotic new world. He says, “There's less time because the time has to be spread extra thin over all the places, like butter. so all the persons say "Hurry up! Let's get going! Pick up the pace! Finish up now!"
I'll be honest: this movie haunted me. It's a depressing, thought-provoking piece that rings completely true. You may remember the tale of Ariel Castro, who kept 3 sex-slaves locked in his house for over a decade. While Room is fictional (the book was published when the Castro case was still an unsolved mystery), it's a devastating look at the life of a prisoner, and the psychological effects this would have. Brie Larson's Oscar-winning performance is an impressive feat, presenting a woman who's accepted her life in the Room but still clings to memories of the world she had before. She has oddly-casual conversations with her captor, and speaks of her name as if it was from a past life in another world (“I was once a girl named 'Joy'”).
The structure of the film is a bit weird because it hits a climax about half-way through the movie, and thus has a very long period of falling action. I'm a bit ambivalent on that choice, since the second half doesn't have a clear direction. However, it ends with a real gut-punch. In the early parts of the movie, we're led to believe that “Room” is like a small apartment. The tricky cinematography shows the boy's point of view, turning the living space into a world with lots of things in it. When we see it later, it's completely different, reflecting the boy's changed perspective, and I believe the film-makers when they say they didn't cheat.
Room is brilliant, and easily the best of the “serious” movies up for Best Picture. It has many great scenes, many great performances, and is just a great movie all around.
#3: The Martian (****)
Director Ridley Scott has a rather mixed track record, having directed sci-fi classics (Alien, Bladerunner) and the Oscar-winning Gladiator, but also a number of flops. The Martian is his best film in a long time, combining character drama and realistic sci-fi with impeccable production design.
The story goes that Matt Damon is left for dead on Mars, the casualty of a panicked early evacuation. Since rescuing Matt Damon is what movies do best, The Martian follows various efforts to either bring Damon back to Earth, or survive long enough to meet up with the next Mars mission. The story is an extreme example of a “no man left behind” philosophy, as the entire world rallies to bring the astronaut home.
There are a lot of science nitpicks if you want to look for them (the most prominent being a windstorm on Mars, a planet with almost no atmosphere), but even so, The Martian sticks close to established science and realistic ideas of how futuristic space travel and colonization would work. The sci-fi ideas are well-thought-out, and explained clearly enough for a lay audience. The premise can sort of be compared to Gravity, and while I think Gravity is a slightly better movie, The Martian is better science fiction.
But what impressed me even more is how many supporting characters the movie successfully juggles. Even though much of the movie is Matt Damon by himself, the story actually emphasizes the team aspect of science and engineering. There's a lot of minor scientist and engineer characters, all of whom are very distinct and credible. The fact that I never had to wonder “who's that guy?” is to the credit of both the cast and the script.
The only reason I'm not ranking this movie higher is because as well-done as it is, it felt slightly sterile from an emotional perspective. Other than that, The Martian is an incredibly well-done movie that's fun and interesting.
#4: The Revenant (****)
Originally posted on 2-17-16
If you're planning to see The Revenant, you should probably catch it in theaters. I know, I know... We're all sick of being corralled into high-priced venues by movies boasting the necessity of their 3D effects or IMAX screens, especially when the movie really isn't that good (Avatar,Hugo, Tron Legacy, etc.). While The Revenant will probably hold up find on DVD, I'd hate to have missed the full experience of its gorgeous cinematography.
Visually, the movie is something of a masterwork, truly transporting you to the wilds of an earlier, less civilized America. The landscapes are amazing, and a lot of the camerawork is truly impressive, with long and intricate takes. I especially liked the opening, with a long POV show of a hunting party going through a shallow stream, and the big battle, which places the camera in the middle of a fight, allowing the audience only faint glimpses of the attackers.
The story loosely follows the true story of Hugh Glass, a hunter who was mauled by a bear and left for dead by his companions, including a young Jim Bridger (who went on to become a legendary mountain man). Glass somehow survived and made it back to the nearest fort, and this harrowing journey is portrayed and greatly embellished in The Revenant. It's expected that Leo DiCaprio will win an Oscar for his performance, which would be kind of funny consider how few lines he has. Indeed, a lot of the movie is spent watching him grunt or breathe heavily.
And... that gets at the main problem with this movie. It's quite long and a lot of it is spent watching Leo grunt while slowly crawling through the snow. To an extent, this choice is understandable, since such a grueling tale of survival should feel long and grueling. But the movie takes it too far, and by the final confrontation, I'd started to lose interest.
If The Revenant were more efficiently edited, it'd be a masterpiece. As is, it's still a very good movie, though not the easiest one to watch. It's definitely not a fun popcorn movie, but it's worth seeing as an art film.
#5: Spotlight (****)
Originally posted on 12-19-15
Priest abuse scandals have been around for awhile, but the story broke new ground in the early 2000's. Investigations initiated by the Boston Globe showed that high-ranking church officials had covered up abuse for a shockingly large number of molesters, and shuttled some abusive priests to new areas. The investigation came from a small team of journalists called “Spotlight”, hence the title of the movie.
It's nearly impossible to deal with the subject of religion unbiased. Even though we'd all agree that molesting kids and teens is a terrible thing to do, there's a tendency for the religious to downplay the scandal, and for the nonreligious to exaggerate with glee. Spotlight engages this in an interesting way, by showing that anti-religious bias lowers ones credibility, to the point that no one believed the whistle-blowers when they were right. Today, with much of our information coming from biased websites with dubious credibility, would we believe them when they reported an actual scandal?
Such complications constantly arise in the plot of Spotlight, along with the usual cover-up conspiracies and legal shenanigans that you'd expect in such a movie. The investigation and the scandal was fairly complicated, so it's to the script's credit that everything is fairly comprehensible and easy to follow. I'm not a fan of All the President's Men (though I respect it), and I think Spotlight addressed many of my complaints, by moving at a faster pace, keeping all the pieces straight, and providing better emotional climaxes.
Much will be made of the actors, who are all believable and very nuanced. A number of big Hollywood stars appear and largely give understated performances. Stanley Tucci plays the Big Ham, and Mark Ruffallo plays the emotional one, but everyone else is a quiet, relatively measured character, and it's a challenge to give such characters the depth and charisma needed. Great work all around.
#6. Bridge of Spies (*** and a half)
There's a videogame called “No One Lives Forever”, in which a henchmen points out that the James Bond-esque action hero is not a spy but a military operative. Spies do a lot more information-gathering and a lot less shooting people. So you should know right off the bat that Bridge of Spies deals with real spies, not action heroes, so it may disappoint moviegoers expecting fight scenes, car chases, and gadgets.
The story takes place during the Cold War, when an aging Soviet spy is caught, and then defended by an insurance lawyer played by Tom Hanks. The first part of the story focuses on American values, specifically the idea that even a foreign agent deserves a fair trial. However, the plot shifts focus halfway through, when an American spy-plane pilot is shot down (a rather harrowing scene), and Tom Hanks attempts to arrange a trade, earning both men their freedom.
This isn't the most exciting or unique movie, but it's definitely very well done. If you're the sort of person with an appreciation for fine details and subtlety, this is the movie for you. The dialogue is fantastic and the acting is very strong. Of particular note is Mark Rylance, a stage actor doing a very odd, very understated performance that will either impress you or leave you scratching your head. As a community theater actor myself, I enjoyed it. This is a rare case in which the Oscars seemed to be looking for best acting, and not most acting. Also impressive is the musical score, which is soaring and beautiful, and easily some of the best music from last year.
The story is also interesting in that it engages the complexities of Cold War politics. What starts out as a simple trade becomes more difficult when different factions behind the Iron Curtain start trying to make different side-deals and power plays. This includes corrupt East German leaders who set up a fake “family” for Mark Rylance and end up detaining a random American student who is of no interest to them except as a bargaining chip.
Bridge of Spies doesn't stand out as much as best Best Picture nominees, but it's definitely a fine piece of film-making from Steven Spielberg.
#7. Brooklyn (*** and a half)
When it comes to movies, there's the idea of “high concept” films that can be sold based on their premise. Brooklyn is the opposite, a movie with a fairly bland premise that shines in the execution. The story: Irish girl comes to America and falls in love. Yawn... But the film is much better than that.
Many of the interesting parts of the movie focus on the immigrant experience. The film does a great job of putting you into the shoes of a foreigner, transported to a new world with people you don't quite understand. Saoirese Ronan's “Eilis” character is a great vessel for this experience, as she exudes charm and quiet depth without having to spell everything out for the audience. Another slightly subtle detail is the varying degrees of assimilation that the various Irish immigrant characters adopt. It's interesting to see a situation in which different “white” backgrounds are treated as separate ethnicities, something lost in our modern media culture. Glance around the table of Eilis' boarding house and you can spot the differences in speech, behavior, dress, and hairstyles between the recent arrivals and the Irish women who have chosen to become more “American.”
(Slightly off-topic: Saoirese Ronan probably should have picked a stage name about ten years ago. She's lovely and talented, but even I sometimes forget how to pronounce her name.)
Then, there's the romance. I'm a very cynical bachelor, but I actually found the pairing between Eilis and her Italian beau to be cute and endearing. The marked contrast with more modern movie romances is very evident, as it focuses on a growing relationship based on respect and honor, rather than flirtation and sexiness. There's an old-fashioned charm to their courtship, and a sense that these are good people who “deserve each other” in the best sense of the phrase.
For all that, I don't rank this as one of the best of the 2015 Best Picture nominees for one simple reason: the film's energy dies in the 3rd act. Ideally a story builds, increasing audience investment. Brooklyn instead reaches a comfortable cruising altitude, and then starts to diminish without ever reaching a climax. Since this isn't a plot-twist movie, I'll give some things away: basically, Eilis gets into a love-triangle and is tempted to rejoin her homeland. The love-triangle is unconvincing, and only has one obvious outcome that doesn't make Eilis into a terrible person. Simultaneously, the dilemma actually puts her in a position of power (since everyone is begging for her attention), so the story decreases the challenges for her when it should be ramping things up. I can see what the film-makers were trying to do, and it makes sense on a thematic level, but it simply doesn't work otherwise. The last half-hour is boring.
Brooklyn is a charming, uplifting period drama that is good enough to make me wish it was better. See it for the 1950's atmosphere, cute romance, and great performance by Saoirese Ronan. I really liked the first half of the movie, and its compelling depiction of the immigrant experience. It's also a nice companion piece to Spotlight, showing a more positive view of the Catholic church. Even the dull 3rd act is still watchable, and somewhat salvaged by a clever epilogue.
#8. The Big Short (***)
Markets boom and bust all the time, but the 2007-2008 financial crisis in the US got a lot more attention for its unusual severity, and the effect it had on the average person. Not everyone follows stock market trends, but many people do own homes, and the collapse in home values left many people stuck with under-water mortgages and foreclosures. This brought the byzantine machinations of the financial world to the attention of the average American, hence why we've gotten movies like The Big Short and Inside Job.
You may know that I dabble in investments and read a LOT of financial news, so I'm familiar with this material. Overall, I was mixed on the film's portrayal of finance stuff. Some of it was fairly accurate, and I think one of the film's strengths is that it makes financial business funny and silly. But other things were dumbed down to the point of not making any sense (Politico has a pretty good piece on this). Overall, I was OK with the film's accuracy until the end, which seemed very politically skewed. Seriously, does Adam McKay really not know about Dodd-Frank, or all the legal backlash against the ratings agencies, or how basic criminal law works? To quote Democratic Senator Barney Frank, “... at the end of the movie they say nothing changed, which is nonsense.“
OK, so it's another movie about how Wall Street is full of liars and crooks. Is there anything else here to see? Actually... yeah, the movie's pretty good. It takes a good cast and makes them fun and interesting to watch. Ryan Gosling is the slimy one, Steve Carell is the angry one, Christian Bale is the weird one, and Brad Pitt is the sad and serious one. With the exception of Pitt (who gives a fine, understated performance), everyone is a larger than life character dripping with quirks and personality. The dialogues are fast-paced and fun, and the film takes boring, complicated financial concepts and makes a joke out of how boring and complicated they are.
This makes for a good movie, but not a great one. At times it feels like the film is trying too hard, almost like it got notes from Family Guy about how to pander to an audience with low attention spans.Sure, The Big Short is very watchable and features some great preformances. However, it's also gimicky, over-edited, and emotionally hollow.