2016 Best Picture Nominees, Ranked
This was probably the most “meh” set of nominees I've seen in awhile, so we'll be doing something a little different...
Coming in at Number 34...
#34. Manchester by the Sea (** and a half)
Oscar Bait: a critically-acclaimed movie that is generally well-written, well-acted, and well-made... and yet somehow still not worthy of a recommendation.
You don'tneed to see Manchester by the Sea. It's an OK movie, but I could name 33 movies from 2016 that were more exciting, more interesting, and overall a better use of your time. But if you're like me and feel the irrational need to pay attention to everything the Academy nominates, here's the gist of this movie that will be forgotten by the time I finish typing up this review: Casey Affleck is a loner who lost his family in an accident, and he returns home after his brother dies of a heart attack, leaving a teenage son behind. Decent premise, but it doesn't really go anywhere. The whole movie is just people in a bad situation being sad.
And here's another problem: the movie doesn't have any sense of hope, and thus it doesn't have any stakes. The most likable character is already dead, the main character is an obvious lost cause, and the teenage nephew is an annoying asshole who isn't worth our time. I wanted to be sympathetic towards teenage “Patrick” because he lost his dad, but that grief only comes across in one scene. The rest of the movie is about the kid's epic quest to cheat on his girlfriend (seriously, this goes on for about half the movie, and yes, it's just as f-ing stupid of a subplot as it sounds). Meanwhile, Michelle Williams is barely in the movie
To be fair, there are a few good scenes, or at least two that come to mind. One is a flashback in which Casey Affleck recalls the night his family dies, and another is a reunion between him and his ex-wife. These two scenes showcase some nice acting and use of subtext. Everything else is just blah... OK, but not quite good enough to be worth your attention.
#33. Deadpool...
#32. The Secret Life of Pets...
#31. La La Land (** and a half)
G'damn it...
STOP CASTING MUSICALS WITH MOVIESTARS WHO CAN NOT SING OR DANCE!!!
Virtually every musical theater actor I talked to warned me that the singing and dancing in La La Land is bad. There actually is some good singing and dancing in the movie, but only from John Legend and the ensemble. The opening scene, featuring ensemble performers dancing and singing on top of cars during gridlock traffic, is the most entertaining piece by far. But once the focus shifts to Gosling and Stone, the quality dips to an unacceptable level. Stone sings with a thin, quivering voice and struggles to hit her notes, while Gosling is on-pitch but dull and lifeless. Their dance numbers are very simplistic, alternating between beginning ballroom and the basic “step, kick” routines that a community theater gives to cast members who can't dance. And they don't even do that very well, lacking sharpness and precision. Are we really supposed to ignore the lack of musical skill just because the actors are famous and well-promoted? I'm sorry, but the Emperor and Empress have no clothes.
OK, but supposed you just want to enjoy the story. Does La La Land hold up? Eh... It's a pretty simple story about two struggling Los Angeles performers who fall in love but then find it difficult to stay in a relationship. The story is OK, but it gets really slow in the middle. I will laud some of the acting, however. A particularly notable scene shows the couple discussing schedules over dinner, gradually escalating the tension over the course of the conversation. It actually does a good job of explaining why people in such an industry have such a high rate of divorce.
However, the aforementioned dinner scene brought up a problem: it's the first time in the movie that the characters are interesting at all. Until then, Stone is Actress McHopeful, and Gosling is Jazz Snob. That's all there is to them, and 90% of the movie is about them and no one else. In short, La La Land is a movie that bets that farm on two characters, neither of whom are very interesting, played by actors who can't sing or dance. That sinks the whole experience.
Putting that fatal flaw aside, I can strain a few great aspects out of La La Land. The instrumental sections of the music are excellent, and used well in the final segment, which features all the artsy stuff seen in the trailer. The opening scene is also a memorable and fun number. And, um... J.K. Simmons makes a cameo? Yeah, I'm really surprised by how little I liked this movie, given it's from the writer-director of Whiplash.
#30. Keanu...
#29. Jason Bourne...
#28. Alice: Through the Looking Glass...
#27. Star Trek Beyond...
#26. Central Intelligence...
#25. Finding Dory...
#24. Moonlight (***)
“So tell me about the Best Picture Nominees.”
“Well, there's La La Land, which is a colorful throwback to old school Hollywood Musicals.”
“Hmmm... OK, could be fun.”
“And there's Arrival, which is about skyscraper-sized alien pods that suddenly appear on earth.”
“Why? Are the aliens invading?”
“Well, that's the point, you have to see the movie to find out.”
“OK, I'm intrigued. Keep going.”
“Then there's Hacksaw Ridge, about a pacifist soldier in WWII who refuses to carry a weapon, but ends up winning the medal of honor.”
“Ooh, that sounds good.”
“Hell or High Water is about 2 brothers who rob a bank that's about to foreclose on them.”
“Ah, that's interesting.”
“Then there's Moonlight, the story of a gay black man.”
“Um... a gay black man who does what?”
“It's just the story of his life.”
“Is he a famous man? Have I heard of him?”
“No, he's a fictional character. It's just the story of his life.”
“Ok. Does he do anything exciting or incredible?”
“Well, you see.. He's gay.”
“Right, we've established that. Is he a gay rights activist?”
“Nope, but he's black!”
“Yeah, I got that. What does he do?”
“Nothing, it's just the story about how he's gay and black.”
Yeah... I know I'm going to be accused of anti-liberal bias here, but Moonlight is not a worthy contender for the best movie of 2016. That's not to say that it's bad. It's fine. It's watchable, and I did enjoy the performance of Mahershala Ali. But that's it. It's not that interesting, not very exciting, and not actually edgy. It's just another milquetoast Oscar bait movie that had the right stuff to get Academy approval.
The first problem is that the movie is very low-concept. It doesn't have a compelling premise, and the plot doesn't really go anywhere. These sorts of movies generally rely on the acting and writing, and that's the problem: the acting and writing is solid... but unexceptional. The only actor who really stands out is Ali, and he's only in the first half-hour of the movie. Honestly, I wish this movie was about him. Hell, I would have settled for a movie about the mom, the best friend, or the bully. The main character is probably the least interesting character in the whole affair.
OK, I'm making this movie much sound worse than it is. Truth be told, it's decent. It moves at a decent pace, some of the direction and cinematography is really good, and there are a few great scenes. Probably the most powerful scene involves the young protagonist asking his surrogate father-figure (Ali) what the word “faggot” means, and then asking about the drug business. Ali rises for a moment with moral superiority, before admitting that he is indirectly responsible for the child's bad home situation. In moments like that, I can see what the Academy saw in Moonlight.
If you're curious, I think Moonlight is worth a watch for a few great scenes, and an interesting depiction of the black community in 1980's Miami. It's also less than two hours, so the movie doesn't overstay its welcome. But I doubt it will be a favorite of many movie fans.
#23. Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children...
#22. The Shallows...
#21. Hidden Figures (***)
Hidden Figures tells the story of three African-American women who worked for NASA during the 1960's, helping the fledgling space program prepare for John Glenn's historic flight. Right from that sentence, you can probably guess the gist of the story, and the key scenes.
This is one of those instances in which I have to admit that I watch too many movies. After awhile, they all start to bleed together, and certain trends that were once comforting become downright irritating. I watched Hidden Figures and imagined that I would have loved it at a younger age, especially if I had just learned about the civil rights era in school. But as a jaded mid-30's film buff, I found it very formulaic. The characters, the conflicts, the structure... they're all fine, but also very, very predictable and cliché.
And that brings me to the difficult subject of historical accuracy. I generally don't demand strict historical accuracy in these types of movies. I believe there is a place for modern myth-making, and I've praised movies that took significant liberties with the truth. On one hand, one could praise Hidden Figures for educating people on contributors to the space program that hardly anyone had heard about before. On the other, it's notable that almost all of the segregationist drama in the movie is exaggerated or fictional, and that the truth was more nuanced. So you have the weird situation of a movie portraying under-exposed characters with over-exposed tropes.
There I go again with my over-analytical film buff ramblings! If you don't care about any of that, and just want to see a feel-good movie that is generally appealing, then I actually recommend Hidden Figures over some of the Best Picture nominees I consider to be much better. It's a solid, entertaining PG-rated drama with some humor. You can show it to your kids and friends without any worries, as it's probably the most accessible of the nominees.
Hidden Figures is a solid crowdpleaser that should go over easy with most movie fans. It's held back but the cliché script and some really corny moments (culminating in a parade of women who all apparently learned computer science from a single library book...), but it's an enjoyable flick with good actors.
#20. Florence Foster Jenkins...
#19. Hell or High Water (***)
(Originally posted on 12-17-16)
Like Hacksaw Ridge, Hell or High Water has been on a lot of year-end award lists. I can almost see why, though I don't agree with such high praise. Hell or High Water is solid and has a few great aspects, but when the credits rolled, I was scratching my head and thinking “that's it?”
The plot concerns two brothers who travel across rural Texas robbing banks. However, they are very specific in their robberies, taking money from a bank that they feel cheated their departed mother. Their plan is not to get rich, but to steal enough to pay back that very same bank and avoid foreclosure. I feel like there's been a lot of movies about bank robbers, but this is kind of an interesting twist.
(Incidentally, in talking with a DA, I've learned that bank robberies in real life are pretty unexciting.)
I will say that I was impressed with Chris Pine, who physically and vocally transforms into a redneck without missing a beat. He plays the more sympathetic of the two brothers, as a recently-divorced man who cared for his dying mother. I guess Ben Foster did fine as the other brother, but the character is a complete monster, and the film doesn't seem to recognize this. The most charismatic of the cast is easily Jeff Bridges as a tenacious Texas Ranger who craves one more adventure before his retirement.
With these fairly strong characters, and a decent premise, Hell of High Water gets off to a good start. But it doesn't get better. It stays at the same level while it spoonfeeds its message to the audience. I found the writing quality very inconsistent. There are a few moments of brilliance, but also a lot of cringe-worthy scenes in which the screenwriter seemed to be trying way too hard (Oh dear, that restaurant scene...). There's also a sense that this movie is assembled from pieces of various Coen Brothers flicks.
Hell of High Water is solid. It's a decent bank-robbery/Western movie with good actors. But it doesn't stick the landing, so I wouldn't go in expecting much more.
#18. The Jungle Book...
#17. Pete's Dragon...
#16. The BFG...
#15. Arrival (*** and a half)
The TV series Star Trek was more than just an adventure serial, but also a chain of “what if?” scenarios imagining worlds with beings/culture/physics that defy human conventions. Every once in awhile someone makes a feature-length oh-so-serious movie based on this idea. To be honest, I've never found these types of movies as smart as they try to be. That said, Arrival is one of the better ones.
The premise is that Starfish Aliens arrive on Earth in 12 spaceships, and no one can figure out what they want. Every 18 hours the spaceships open up and people are allowed inside, but the alien language is so dissimilar from any human language that even rudimentary communication is impossible. The army hires a linguist (Amy Adams) to engage the aliens in a way that will encourage their (presumably) higher intelligence to interface with humans in a way that can be understood (at least by computers, if not living humans).
To say more about the plot would be to say too much. I think this is one of those movies that's best seen when you know very little about it, as much of the movie's appeal is the sense of mystery and discovery. Arrival is quite slow, but it does have a sense of buildup that allows the more tense parts to actually be really tense.
Due to the mysterious plot, I can't say too much more, but I will say that the story and acting are very strong, even if the art design sucks. Seriously, the design of the aliens and their environment needed a lot more thought put into it.
Arrival is actually a pretty simple story, so I really think it would have been much better with a tighter 90-minute run-time. Still, it's an engaging story with a good plot twist that will make you think at least a little.
#14. Moana...
#13. Dr. Strange...
#12. The Lobster...
#11. Fences (*** and a half)
If nothing else, Fences makes a very strong case for the play it's based on.
I'd heard before that Fences is basically a filmed play, and that it doesn't make good use of the film medium. This is entirely true. Most of the movie consists of long scenes of dialogue in constrained locations. Actually, when the movie does pan to another location or include a montage, it feels totally out of place, as if the film suddenly broke its own rules. So yes, I think Fences probably would have been a much better experience if I had seen these actors live, and also had an intermission. But if I don't get that chance, I'll settle for this movie, because the actors and dialogue are very good.
Actually, Fences is the only Best Picture Nominee that really impressed me with its dialogue. It almost seemed like a throwback to Golden-Age classics like All About Eve, in which quick and witty dialogue flows effortlessly from the characters without ever feeling contrived or forced. The script has tons of zingers, but each has a purpose. Never once does it feel like the characters are winking at the audience, or trying to be funny. They display genuine frustration and feeling while going through one of the most engaging and rapid-fire screenplays of the year.
The story follows a bitter garbage man who resents his harsh upbringing, as well as racial discrimination (both real and perceived) that kept him from being a professional baseball player. This conflict is brought to the forefront as his teenage son pursues a sports scholarship, and stubborn Dad dukes it out with Mom and others who try to convince him that times are changing. Interestingly, Dad is somewhat of an unreliable narrator, as other characters constantly call BS on his various tall tales and complaints. He's also a very flawed character, and becomes very unlikable at times.
Fences won't appeal to everyone, as 139 minutes of dense dialogue gets very exhausting. To be honest, there were a few times that I got bored and ancy. I think with some cutting and more stylish film-making, we'd have a masterpiece on our hands. As is, you get a filmed version of what seems to be an excellent play, played masterfully by Denzel Washington and company.
#10. Zootopia...
#9. The Mermaid...
#8. Captain America Civil War...
#7. 10 Cloverfield Lane...
#6. Lion (****)
Lionis based on the true story of an Australian man who tracked down his birth mother in rural India using Google Earth. However, I don't recommend it for that aspect of the story.
The part of Lion that really excels is the odyssey of a lost child. To explain how the main character came to be adopted in Australia, the film charts the very long trek that led him astray, trapped on the wrong train, lost in a station, fleeing from slavers, and encountering other sinister characters in 1980's India. This story turns out to be a very powerful dramatic center. As children, most of us probably has those moments of panic when we couldn't locate our parents. The idea of the “lost child” is a deeply-rooted fear for both parents and children, one that isn't easily forgotten. More broadly, the desire to reclaim the perceived safety and comfort of home is one that never really leaves us. And perhaps that is why Lion hits as hard as it does.
I was also very struck by the authenticity of Lion. The drama is especially strong because the setting feels so real, never once contrived or artificial. I was not surprised to find that Salamon Rushdie (who notably slammed Slumdog Millionaire) was a big fan of Lion, and praised its accuracy.
The middle of Lion gets a bit slow, when Dev Patel takes over and agonizes over finding his birth family. It's a good story, but the main character gets to mopey and the pace starts to slacken. Fortunately, Nicole Kidman keeps things interesting, with one of the most fascinating speeches in any movie from last year.
Lion doesn't seem to get as much talk as the other Best Picture Nominees, but it really should get more attention. It's a powerful, arresting story with an interesting premise and a heart-wrenching ending.
#5. Silence...
#4. The Nice Guys...
#3.The Witch...
#2. Kubo and the Two Strings...
#1. Hacksaw Ridge (*****)
(originally posted 12-17-16)
“Say what you will about Mel Gibson, the *!&@ knows story structure!”-South Park
After a series of controversial incidents, Mel Gibson returns to the director's chair for the first time in a decade. If Hacksaw Ridge ends up garnering some Oscar nods (unclear, given the political nature of the Academy), it might be a comeback vehicle for the troubled director. Actually, three of the lead actors involved (Andrew Garfield, Sam Worthington, and Vince Vaughn) are also badly in need of a critical hit. And the result? I can't believe I'm saying this, but Hacksaw Ridge might be the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan. Yes, it's that good.
The story follows Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who joins the Army, but refuses to kill anyone. In fact, he refuses to even handle weapons. Naturally, his superiors try to kick him out, but Doss ends up sticking around as a combat medic, and wins the Medal of Honor for heroism during the Battle of Okinawa. The advantage of this plot is that it gives the movie an angle. We've seen WWII battle scenes before. We need more than just a story of some guys who shoot guns. The choice to focus on a pacifist in the middle of a war zone is an interesting choice, and leads to a unique climax.
Before we get to the war stuff,he film has some less exciting scenes about Doss' childhood, first marriage, and training. This part of the film sometimes seems like typical Oscar bait, but manages to move quickly enough to avoid belaboring the point. Also, there are some major highlights, such as Hugo Weaving as an alcoholic WWI veteran, and Vince Vaughn as an hilariously ill-tempered drill sergeant. Oddly enough, I laughed harder at Vaughn in Hacksaw Ridge than I did during his any of his “frat pack” comedy films.
Once the film gets to Okinawa, it kicks into high gear and becomes holy-crap-amazing. The cinematography is frightening and epic, the performances are emotional, and the action is some of the best I've ever seen. A few visuals that deserve special mention: a giant cliff that the soldiers climb with cargo nets, a suspenseful dusty landscape that has just been shelled by artillery, and a large soldier charging forward while using the body of a fallen comrade as a shield. The battle scenes are frantic but somehow never hard to follow, which is a testament to the filming and editing.
And yet, it's not the battle scenes that give the film its emotional climax. The hero, after all, never fires a gun. Under the cover of night, Doss runs around a bombed-out battlefield, searching for wounded survivors, and constantly praying to God to help him find one more. It's brilliantly tense, as Doss barely dodges Japanese patrols and snipers, and also very inspiring. The change in pace and content from the earlier battle scenes provides a great contrast. The movie beats us down with scenes of death, and then raise us up by showing that many of the men have a second chance.
Hacksaw Ridge is amazing. I'll be somewhat upset if it doesn't get nominated for Best Picture.