The Invisible Man

Elizabeth Moss is the main reason to watch this film. Leigh Whannell wrote and directed this modern reiteration of the classic story and he definitely gave it a refreshing spin. However, after an excellent opening sequence, the story started to drag and Moss played the victim for far too long. Unfortunately, when she started kicking-ass, the movie was almost over. As brilliant and as enrapturing as Moss was, her character was too passive to be totally engaging. And Whannell also succumbed to the M Night Shyamalan syndrome with an unnecessary double-ending (hint hint...no spoilers).

Whannell is a great horror director and the first Saw and Insidious can rightfully be claimed as cornerstones of the modern horror genre. And he used his skill to great effect here with long, wandering shots and wide-angles, daring you to blink or take a breath just in case you missed something.

However as a writer, Whannell tended to be indulgent and clunky. His storylines lacked depth and his characters lacked substance. They all appear as stock characters with default emotions and storyline. If it was not for Moss, this film would have been even flatter.

This film ran just over two hours (124 minutes) and it could have been shorter and tighter. The story is well known so there is no surprise there regarding who/what the antagonist was, and in that case the narrative had to focus on the journey, but in that regard it just meandered. Whannell's screenplay was too simplistic and predictable to be effective, so thankfully we had Moss to make it all worth it.

Moss is going to win an Oscar one day. With Mad Men, Top of the Lake and The Handmaid's Tale, she has established herself as a tremendous actress with incredible range and depth. And once Handmaid's is over, perhaps she can focus fully on her feature film career and that might lead to a lot more exciting projects.

In The Invisible Man, Moss commanded the screen and her emotional breakdown was spectacular. A pity Whannell did not harness that raw power to his advantage. Everybody else around her were less spectacular, so luckily the antagonist was invisible and Moss really only had to act against herself.

This film was a showcase for Moss and reaffirmed Whannell as an accomplished, albeit unexciting, genre director. But it will be so much more exciting if we paired Moss with Hereditary/Midsommar's Ari Aster or The Witch/The Lighthouse's Robert Eggers.

The Gentlemen

This film returned Guy Ritchie back to his roots of the low budget, gangster/crime caper after doing his tours of tentpole blockbusters like “Aladdin”, “King Arthur” and “Sherlock Holmes”. However, “The Gentlemen” is still no “Snatch” or “Lock, Stocking and Two Smoking Barrels”. 

It maintained Ritchie's signature unreliable narrative with a twisty-turny plotline, and coupled it with Ritchie’s patented quick edits, smash cuts, slow-mos and of course British wit. But, the general story was essentially too simplistic and unnecessarily complicated. It seemed at times to have been deliberately stretched out just to fill the run time. Then again, at 113 minutes, the film was not that long. 

Thankfully Ritchie assembled an ace cast that helped to sell the film and maintained the audience’s attention. 

Hugh Grant was the main standout and he is definitely having a late career renaissance embodying more dastardly characters than the lovable fops of his youth. Grant’s main scene partner was Charlie Hunnam who was great as the straight man to Grant’s whimsiness and also to Matthew McConaughey’s even straighter crime lord. 

McConaughey was well cast here but it begs to wonder how much of the story was changed, if any, to have this American take centre stage. His casting probably led to the casting of Jeremy Strong as the other American., although Strong delivered on Ritchie’s dry, Brit humour better than McConaughey. The campiness helped. 

The other standout was a barely-recognisable Colin Farrell who only had a few scenes but was  great/hilarious in them. 

Michelle Dockery held her own but she really was the Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s Eleven” - pretty, independent, but superfluous. 

And new “heartthrob” Henry Golding needs to try harder. 

Ritchie needs to make a full fledged all-British gangster caper again, but at least with “The Gentlemen” fans know he has not fully sold out...yet.

92nd Academy Awards (Oscars 2020)

Lots of good films this year, but also lots of good acting in mediocre films. The acting categories seemed more or less certain this year, but given last year's surprise Olivia Colman's triumph over expected winner Glenn Close (yay!), we might still be in for a surprise. Although there should be some lock-ins this year, like Roger Deakins getting his second Best Cinematography Oscar and Honeyland winning Best Documentary.

Parasite was undoubtedly my personal favourite movie of the year. I would be thrilled if they swept everything! Imagine that! Best International Film and Best Picture. But it has tough competition from 1917. Unfortunately, The Irishman and Marriage Story has lost some traction. The black horse would be Toronto Film Fest Audience winner Jojo Rabbit and the box-office champ Joker.

This award show will sure be interesting! And if nothing else, if Brad Pitt wins, we will sure to get an awesome speech!

*Winners are highlighted in red. 

BEST PICTURE

fORD V FERRARI

THE IRIShMAN

JOJO RABBIT

JOKER

LITTLE WOMEN

MARRIAGE STORY

1917

oNCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

PARASITE

Who Should Win: Parasite
Who Will Win: 1917
Who Could Win: Jojo Rabbit

This category is wide open and will be a fight between Sam Mende's 1917 and Bong Joon-Ho's Parasite. They could end up splitting the Best Picture and Best Director award like last year, but it will be hard to tell which it will go, but a foreign film winning Best Picture, even one as popular and beloved as Parasite will be quite anti-establishment. 

BEST DIRECTOR

Martin scorcese

THE IRISHMAN

todd phillips

JOKER


sam mendes
1917


quentin tarantino
ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD


bong joon-ho
PARASITE

Who Should Win: Bong Joon-Ho

Who Will Win: Bong Joon-Ho
Who Could Win: Sam Mendes

I am putting my money on Director Bong winning this, and 1917 getting Best Picture. If Sam Mendes wins Best Director, the final Best Picture award will be very, very exciting.

BEST ACTOR

ANTONIO BANDERAS

PAIN & GLORY

leonardo dicaprio

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

adam driver

MARRIAGE STORY

joaquin phoenix

JOKER

jonathan pryce

the two popes

Who Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix

Who Will Win: Joaquin Phoenix
Who Could Win: Adam Driver

This race has always been a two-horse race between Phoenix and Driver. Phoenix gave an utterly compelling and transformative performance in Joker, and undoubtedly it was his performance that propelled the film to its billion-dollar box office takings. Driver, on the other hand, had a fantastic emotive performance that showed his range as an actor and washed off the bad taste of Kylo Ren. But with minimal campaigning, and Marriage Story already falling out of the conversation, his chances may have dimmed.

BEST ACTRESS

cynthia erivo

harriet

scarlett johansson 

MARRIAGE STORY

SAoirse ronan

LITTLE WOMEN

charlize theron

bombshell

renee zellweger

judy

Who Should Win: Renee Zellweger

Who Will Win: Renee Zellweger

Who Could Win: Scarlett Johansson

Zellweger seems like a lock here too, but then there was the cautionary tale of Glenn Close from last year. Zellweger was superb as Judy Garland. That was acting, and she also has a great narrative behind her. Her portrayal of Judy lifted the film to better heights than it deserved and she was riveting. Johansson was the underrated star of Marriage Story and the film only worked because of her and Driver together. Ronan has still not gotten a truly outstanding, breakthrough role yet, although she has consistently been phenomenon for her age; Theron was great as Megyn Kelly, but it was more imitation than acting; and I haven't watched Erivo's Harriet yet.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

tom hanks

a beautiful day in the neighbourhood

anthony hopkins

THE TWO POPES

al pacino

THE IRISHMAN

joe pesci

THE IRISHMAN

brad pitt

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

Who Should Win: Joe Pesci

Who Will Win: Brad Pitt
Who Could Win: Tom Hanks

Tom Hanks might get the sympathy win, but this will be Pitt's award to lose. If nothing else, it will be great to hear his speech! But of all five nominees, I thought Joe Pesci gave the best performance (and of his career too), but perhaps the anti-aging may have ticked some folks off. And also the Netflix TV-viewing experience of The Irishman may have diluted his cinematic power.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Kathy bates

richard jewell

Laura dern

MARRIAGE STORY

scarlett johansson

JOJO RABBIT

FLorence pugh

LITTLE WOMEN

margot robbie

BOMBSHELL

Who Should Win: Florence Pugh

Who Will Win: Laura Dern
Who Could Win: Scarlett Johansson

Laura Dern has this sewn up too, although her role in Marriage Story was arresting and a highlight, it did not seem much of a variance from her usual work. This win could be more about celebrating her body of work rather than this particular performance. Of all the performances, Pugh's and Johansson's were the ones that stood out for me. Pugh was a highlight of Little Women, even more so than Saoirse Ronan, and Greta Gerwig's screenplay and direction; whereas Johansson could be rewarded here if they snub her for Best Actress especially since her portrayal of the mother figure in Jojo Rabbit was emotionally rich but yet seemed effortless.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

knives out

Written by Rian Johnson

MARRIAGE STORY

Written by Noah Baumbach

1917

Written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

Written by Quentin Tarantino

PARASITE

Written by Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won

Who Should Win: Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won, PARASITE

Who Will Win: Quentin Tarantino, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD
Who Could Win: Noah Baumbach, MARRIAGE STORY

The traditional narrative will be that Tarantino will win the Oscar for Best Screenplay, especially given that he is unlikely going to win Best Director or Best Picture. However, there is a chance that Pitt might be the only winner from Once Upon a Time and Parasite comes in and sweep this too as it had been doing at the other preceding award shows. Although, Tarantino was not in the running at the WGA, so he still might have a chance here.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

THE IRISHMAN

Written by Steven Zaillian

JOJO RABBIT

Written by Taika Waititi

JOKER

Written by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver

LITTLE WOMEN

Written by Greta Gerwig

THE TWO POPES

Written by Anthony McCarten

Who Should Win: Anthony McCarten, THE TWO POPES

Who Will Win: Greta Gerwig, LITTLE WOMEN
Who Could Win: Taika Waititi, JOJO RABBIT

For my money, McCarten's screenplay for The Two Popes is the smartest of the contenders, but he is definitely a long shot. How many people actually watched the fantastic - and underrated - The Two Popes? It is very likely that the award will go to Gerwig or to Waititi to reward their respective films, with Gerwig being the more PC-choice. Although Waititi has also been sweeping up this award at the WGA and BAFTA. But between both, I'd bet on Gerwig. Waititi's Jojo Rabbit was a crowd-pleaser but it lacked intellectual and emotional depth; Gerwig's adaptation of Little Women was slightly more inventive and the writing was clearer than her directing.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

how to train your dragon: the hidden world

i lost my body

klaus

missing link

toy story 4

Who Should Win: 

Who Will Win: I Lost My Body
Who Could Win: Toy Story 4

For once, I had only watched one of the animated feature nominees, and really Toy Story 4 wasn't the best of the franchise. I have been hearing good things about I Lost My Body so my money is on that. Although Klaus did win the Annie and Missing Link  won at the Golden Globes. But looks like it will not be Pixar again this year.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

THE IRISHMAN

Rodrigo Prieto

JOKER

Lawrence Sher

the lighthouse

Jarin Blaschke

1917

Roger Deakins

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

Robert Richardson

Who Should Win: Roger Deakins

Who Will Win: Roger Deakins
Who Could Win: Roger Deakins

The sure lock-in for this year. Deakin's camera work for 1917 is unparalleled. It was even better than the gorgeously sumptuous work that he did for Blade Runner: 2049. But all the other contenders were great and utterly deserving. And yay for The Lighthouse!

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

JOKER

Hildur Guonadottir 

LITTLE WOMEN

Alexandre Desplat

MARRIAGE STORY
Randy Newman

1917
Thomas Newman

star wars: the rise of skywalker

John Williams

Who Should Win: Hildur Guonadottir

Who Will Win: Hildur Guonadottir
Who Could Win: Either of the Newmans, but maybe Thomas Newman

Guonadottir's score for Joker was fresh, interesting and really stood out. It bolstered Phoenix's performance and helped to propelled the narrative. The closest competitor would be Best Picture frontrunner 1917's Newman whose score also helped to pushed the story especially as we tracked through the harrowing stretches of the film.



BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Corpus christis

Poland

honeyland

North Macedonia

les miserables

France

PAIN & GLORY

Spain

PARASITE

South Korea

Who Should Win: Parasite

Who Will Win: Parasite

Who Could Win: Pain & Glory

This could be Parasite's only win. But if it does not win here, then there will be an outside chance that it might actually nab the Best Picture award. If that is the case, Pain & Glory could just sweep in here.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

"(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again", ROCKETMAN
Music by Elton John; Lyrics by Bernie Taupin

Elton and Bernie are going to win this. The only thing in their way would be whether the Academy's social-conscience will get in the way and award Cynthia Erivo for Stand Up. 

BEST FILM EDITING

PARASITE

Yang Jin-mo

Parasite might start its sweep early and getting this could be a bellwether for it to get the top awards. The editing for this film was superb. A tight, relentless pacing that helped Bong Joon-ho tell a grossly riveting and engaging story. At the same time, the same could also be said for Thelma Schoonmaker who edited The Irishman and made that 3.5 hours movie into what it was.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

PARASITE

That house - a character undo itself - was stunning. But a real challenge will come from Tarantino's authentic, vivid, lived-in experience of 60s LA from Once Upon a Time, or Mendes' invisibly complicated production design to allow for those amazing one shots in 1917.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

LITTLE WOMEN

This was a difficult category to call. It could end up to Little Women as a sympathy vote/win, although Jacqueline Durran's costuming for the girls and period were an outstanding factor in Gerwig's film. Although as for similar reasons above, Arianna Phillips could win for Once Upon a Time.

BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING

BOMBSHELL

Kazu Hiro did it again, and his transformation of Theron to Megyn Kelly with subtle and undistracting prosthesis was superb. Similarly, this could be where voters choose to award Bombshell for its leading ladies. 

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn)

A fun, enjoyable film led by an animated Margot Robbie in a role that seemed tailor-made for her, not surprising given that she is also a producer. She seemed to be having fun throughout which translated through the screen, although the same could not be said for most of the supporting cast, other than Ewan McGregor who was gloriously campy and hammy.

Directed and written by women, Cathy Yan and Christina Hodson respectively, this film had a decidedly female voice and gaze which was great and refreshing. Yan really showed that she can handle the big budget action/comic-book genre as well as any of the boys (or even better). Most of her action choreography were excellent, especially the ones centered on Robbie. They had a fluid acrobatic/balletic beauty that felt appropriate for Harley Quinn. However, they did tend to get repetitive and she had an over-reliance on slo-mo.

On the other hand, her large action sequences were less successful. They were messier and less coherent. The disjointedness kind of broke the adrenaline-pumping excitement.

Hodson's script may have eschewed male-norms, but the plotting itself was simplistically thin and bare. And if you really think about it, after 109 minutes, which felt more like two hours - another issue of inconsistent pacing there  by Yan - none of the characters, not even Harley Quinn, had much of a character development or growth of any sorts.

Quinn in the end was an anti-villain more than an anti-hero, not someone whom you readily support despite the bad things they did. But nontheless, Robbie inhabited this role with lots of glee and passion, and it is hard to see another actress play Harley Quinn now. Although we did once said that about Heath Ledger's Joker, and then Joaquin Phoenix came along. Though Phoenix's and Ledger's iteration were different, so perhaps someone else can play Harley Quinn a bit less maniac?

Robbie's maniac was infectious and it helped to sell the kinetic, high-energy, comic-book vibe that Yan tried to achieve. Although Yan and Hodson failed to allow her to act beyond that - after all, Robbie is a two-time Oscar nominee now - which was a shame, but that too highlight the main weakness of the film.

Ewan McGregor played the villain and boy, he looked like he was having loads of fun just camping and hamming his way along. His scenes were fun to watch. Now, only if Yan and Hodson had leaned into his ho-yay relationship with his right-hand man played by Chris Messina against type. That would have really flipped the script on the typical male-gaze of comic book movies/genre.

The other Birds of Prey played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell and Rosie Perez really were just there in name. They each had some cool scenes, a back story, but their characters were one-dimensional and broadly sketched, and utterly cliched. Their bantering just did not work.

Then we have Ella Jay Basco who started off rather dull but warmed up in the end when they paired her off with Robbie. Perhaps this could have fared better as an odd couple sorta buddy comedy. Shrugs.

Daniel Pemberton scored the film, but I think Yan's female-led pop music song choices may have overshadowed him. Oscar nominee Matthew Libatique may have lensed this film, but other than some club scenes, nothing really stood out.

Birds of Prey was a good spring time, pre-Oscar distraction, and definitely way better than the mess that was Suicide Squad. DC may have a new franchise on hand, but if they cannot find a way to deepen Harley Quinn as a character, this may not have legs.

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film is not his best, not even top 5, but it did offer two standout performances from true movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt - seriously, these dudes effortlessly exudes charm and movie-stardom, more so Pitt than DiCaprio but that is a debate for another day - subtle work by Margot Robbie and a true breakout performance by “Fosse/Verdon” breakout Margaret Qualley. 

This film was clearly an ode to Hollywood and film-making, as an art and a process, which Tarantino obviously adored/obsessed and it showed. However, at most times it appeared that he may have over indulged and veered into self-indulgent territory, consequentially resulting in an already thin narrative plot being thinner and less focused. 

Pitt and DiCaprio anchored the film with their performances and it was based on their strength and bromance that held all the meandering threads together as Tarantino leaned more and more on show and tell, rather than show not tell, to propel the film. It was also because of them that Tarantino can get away with nary any character development. 

DiCaprio’s character’s emotional breakthroughs are more because of the actor rather than the director/writer giving him great material; Pitt, on the other hand, suffered more as he really was more supporting than lead - but if anything, it should be him that gets nominated rather than DiCaprio - although Pitt has made a skill out of playing unconventional heroes (not really anti-hero, per se, but just atypical). 

Robbie did good work forming an identity for Sharon Tate, and really, the lack of dialogue was not an issue, but perhaps Robbie should start considering better roles before she gets typecast. 

And Qualley is an exciting actress to keep an eye on. 

Other plethora of actors that stood out include Bruce Dern, Luke Perry, Dakota Fanning and Julia Butters. 

Production design was lavish and gorgeous and must have cost a pretty penny; costume and makeup were also spot on. 

Tarantino peppered the film with songs defining the era, and in so doing, oddly enough, sacrificed having a discerning score. 

Cinematography was by Robert Richardson and he did a great job lensing the film and imparting an authentic 60s feel throughout. 

The film clocked in at 161 minutes and it did feel that long, even though the third act felt rushed and tonally different, ironically the most Tarantino-esque, from the first two acts. The third act firmly established this film as a fairy tale/fable of sorts and Tarantino, as an artist, is free to make his art his own way. But, at the same time, if he chooses to tell stories and revise history and re-imagine real people for his narrative purpose, poetic licence and all, then he should be prepared for the backlash, and in this case it will surely be with regard to his leery, misogynistic, camera work, the whitewashing of the Cult of Manson’s racism and (mis)characterisation of Bruce Lee.

Bombshell

This was a film about women and the women ruled. Charlize Theron was outstanding and uncannily identical to Megyn Kelly, not only in appearance (kudos to the makeup and costume team!) but also in speech and mannerisms. Nicole Kidman was underrated and overlooked in this award season as Gretchen Carlson, but Margot Robbie did have a few more juicy scenes that allowed her to shine.

However, the film as whole, written and directed by men, Charles Randolph and Jay Roach respectively, was distinctively masculine and lacked a female POV, some of the scenes rang emotionally hollow and the dialogue though possibly, purposefully clunky for humour felt forced and unnatural. It lacked the witty glibness of The Big Short or even Vice for which it will be inevitably compared to.

Further, the supporting cast was too large and sprawling, and although there were some good performances (hi Kate McKinnon and Allison Janney and Richard Kind!), they mostly felt like distractions from the central storyline which eventually felt diluted despite a great performance by John Lithgow.

The whole narrative itself felt simultaneously sprawling and yet superficial, with Roach and Randolph never really getting beyond the sensationalism of the story. There could have been so much more to mine if they had gotten deeper into the heads of their three leading ladies (or even of Beth Ailes or Faye the assistant - an underutilised Connie Britton and an awesome Holland Taylor).

Theron was excellent and deserving of her Best Actress accolades. She gave a finely measured and calculated performance as Kelly. It was a brilliant imitation and Theron managed to instill some humanity to an otherwise caricature, but unfortunately the material just did not give her much to chew on.

That was unlike for Robbie, who had more juicy scenes. Her scene, alone with Lithgow's Ailes, was one of the great moments in the film. However, of all the Best Support Actresses nominated, I would not think she be the one that was really better than Jennifer Lopez in Hustlers. However, just like Kathy Bates in Richard Jewell, she had that one scene that sealed the deal whereas Lopez did not really have a standout moment other than she was a natural fit for that role.

Kidman has been much overlooked this awards season for her portrayal of Gretchen Carlson. Perhaps because she is such an established actress, a lot more is expected from her but this was also one of her better performances. She really has been on a roll this recent years, less duds, more substances. Her Carlson was a strong, independent woman (and mother, pointedly no husband in sight) who displayed vulnerability yet never weakness. She was, like Theron, equally riveting to watch. A pity these two did not have more scenes together.

Lastly, we had Lithgow. Boy, was he successful in portraying the creepy, sleazebag that was Ailes, but yet still imbued him was a sense of authority and wit that you would believe Ailes would need to have to run/manage such an empire.

The end result was a 108 minutes long pseudo-docudrama that had some great scenes, lots of great acting, but left the audience emotionally neutered. Although, granted, Roger Ailes getting his comeuppance was satisfying.