After a month and a half of buzz, conflicting awards results and Hollywood gamesmanship (some that made the bizarre Best Original Song nominee "Alone Yet Not Alone" a nominee yet not a nominee), yes, the Oscars are finally happening this Sunday night.
Itâ€™s one of the closest races in years â€“ maybe since "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain" in 2005 â€“ so thereâ€™s actual drama going into the evening (other than the usual question of who will degrade E!â€™s Mani-Cam the best).
So as a little refresher for your Oscar parties and betting pools, hereâ€™s a quick guide to the big nominees (my picks are coming Sunday), listing off why or why not each movie has a chance â€“ and a question to either start conversation or drive your friends away with.Â
Why it will win: I mean â€¦ it needs to win, right? Itâ€™d be like "Schindlerâ€™s List" losing to "The Fugitive." Ever since its premiere at Telluride, Steve McQueenâ€™s painfully powerful third feature has been pegged as the frontrunner. Itâ€™s a movie that certainly feels important (itâ€™s now apparently being used in some schools), something the Academy loves.
Putting aside things like social importance and merit, itâ€™s just a brilliant piece of art, one thatâ€™s certainly challenging and punishing but also filled with beauty and humanity. It pushes hard, but McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley find just how hard to push without making the film an exercise in endurance. Â
Why it wonâ€™t win: Nobody loves "12 Years a Slave." People respect it, admire it and find it "important," but it feels like the film that you should put your vote down for, but maybe not want to. The head says to vote for "12 Years a Slave," but the heart â€¦ ?
Interesting/annoying party question: "Without using the words â€˜important,' â€˜necessary' or 'What are you; a racist?' explain why '12 Years a Slaveâ€™ is the best movie of the year?"
Why it will win: Consider it the anti-"12 Years." Yeah, itâ€™s messy and sloppy. But itâ€™s so much fun, filled with contagious energy and the kind of big performances the Oscars love to put their arms around. If McQueenâ€™s film is a demanding college professor who grades harshly and teaches to the bell, "American Hustle" is the fun, laid-back college professor who doesnâ€™t take attendance, makes pop culture references in his lectures and might even go out to the bars with the class. Yeah, youâ€™ll probably appreciate the former more later on in life, but right now?Â
Why it wonâ€™t win: Eventually, even the most ecstatic highs have to come down. After the few weeks of buzz that followed its initial release, the "American Hustle" excitement has tampered down by a loud chorus of "â€¦ so thatâ€™s it?"
Plus, do the Oscar voters want to be on the wrong side of history? Do they want to be the people who passed on "12 Years a Slave" for fluff? Do they want every post-Oscar talk to reference how the Academy is still overwhelmingly white? Because some will likely make that argument.
Interesting/annoying party question: "So when is it revealed that Martin Scorsese directed this the whole time?" "Did you hear how the real-life story ended for Jennifer Lawrenceâ€™s character?"
Why it will win: Itâ€™s a crackerjack action movie, fueled by a great lead performance by a beloved actor and a script thatâ€™s far smarter and more humanist than anyone couldâ€™ve expected. Plus, recent wins for Barkhad Abdi and screenwriter Billy Ray at the BAFTAS and Writers Guild Awards respectively â€“ plus a nomination for Best Editing, typically an area of favorites â€“ imply a quietly powerful following.
Why it wonâ€™t win: From the buzz, Greengrassâ€™ film seems to be everyoneâ€™s second or third choice. In a year of movies with enormous historical ("12 Years"), cinematic ("Gravity") and emotional ("American Hustle") potency, "Captain Phillips" might be left out at sea.
Interesting/annoying party question: "How does Abdi get nominated but not the man who played Captain Phillips himself? Who do you kick out of the Best Actor race to put in Tom Hanks?"
Why it will win: Well, that was unexpected â€¦ and also kind of expected. The story of Ron Woodruff is everything the Academy loves, mainly physically demanding performances and a story based on true events that takes on a social relevant subject with a feel-good aftertaste. Yet itâ€™s managed to play dark horse and underdog this whole time. Itâ€™s Oscar bait that doesnâ€™t feel like Oscar bait, and I donâ€™t know much about fishing, but that seems like a good strategy.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Itâ€™s still a dark horse, one with a newly found groundswell of perfectly timed backlash. Bigger though, there are too many competitors ahead of "Dallas Buyers Club." Instead, itâ€™ll reap its rewards in the acting categories, with Leto almost a lock for Best Supporting Actor and the McConaissance narrative too tempting to leave unrecognized.
Interesting/annoying party question: "Does the reality of Woodruffâ€™s story Ââ€“ that associates say he wasnâ€™t a homophobe that he was possibly openly bisexual Ââ€“ make you think of the movie differently? Also: Should they have cast an actual transgender actor for Rayon?"
Why it will win: As they remind us every year in seemingly endless montages, the Academy is dedicated to the wonder of the movies and the big screen. And has there been a better pure cinematic experience in recent note than "Gravity"? Plus, a tie for Best Picture at the Producers Guild Awards with "12 Years" shows itâ€™s actually a contender, the happy medium between the sloppy fun of "American Hustle" and the depressing art of "12 Years."
Why it wonâ€™t win: It's this year's "Life of Pi." "Gravity" will clean up in the technical categories â€“ including director for CuarÃ³n. But Best Picture? Seems like a reach, especially since sci-fi doesnâ€™t traditionally do well around awards season.
Interesting/annoying party question: "Are the tracking shots and cinematography as impressive knowing that so much of it was done in a computer?
Why it will win: There is a strong following (including myself) of people who love "Her." Itâ€™s original, beautifully shot, elegantly performed and filled with emotional depth that hits the heart. And its use of technology is almost unnervingly relevant.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Remember that part where I said the Academy is overwhelmingly white? Well, theyâ€™re also overwhelmingly old. This is the same group of people who overlooked "The Social Network," an incredibly acute portrait of todayâ€™s techno-obsessed society (and just a great movie period), in favor of a solid BBC movie. "Her" has its devoted followers, just nowhere near enough. The fact it merely got nominated is its victory (and maybe a Best Original Screenplay win if itâ€™s lucky).
Interesting/annoying party question: "Wouldnâ€™t it have been great if Scarlett Johansson was nominated?"
Why it will win: Frankly, itâ€™s hard to come up with reasons why it could win Sunday night. It certainly has fans, and it is a lovely, charming movie. Plus, it has a Best Director nomination, which means thereâ€™s certainly a strong level of respect being sent its way.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Too small. Too low-key. Too modest. Too light. Too many other nominees going more aggressively for the prize. Other than that, I like its chances.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "Do you think Alexander Payne is condescending to Midwesternites?"
Why it will win: Itâ€™s been a surprising road for the little Judi Dench movie that could (though maybe not all that surprising since it comes fueled by notorious awards season guru Harvey Weinstein). "Philomena" is a modest movie, but itâ€™s surprisingly effective, and itâ€™s just the kind of story that could continue to win over the graying hearts of the Academy.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Itâ€™s so modest and tiny that even Harvey wasnâ€™t expecting "Philomena" to make it this far (he had his bets on "August: Osage County" â€¦ womp womp). "Philomena" is nice and sweet, but thereâ€™s nothing about it that grabs the audience, much less votes from other, bigger, sexier nominees.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "How much does your grandma love this movie?" "Since this is seemingly the obvious ninth-best Best Pic nominee, who do you put in its place instead?"
"The Wolf of Wall Street"
Why it will win: You can never count Scorsese out, especially when "Wolf of Wall Street" is his biggest, boldest, brazen movie in years, if not decades. His tale of Wall Street coke, hookers, greed, more coke, more hookers, corruption and one last snort of coke (probably off a hooker) definitely has its fans â€“ myself included â€“ who find the film not only outrageously funny but outrageously biting as well. Plus, between this and "Django Unchained" last year, Unhinged Leo is easily my favorite Leo.
Why it wonâ€™t win: For as many fans as "Wolf" has, it has just as many detractors who find it long, repulsively overindulgent and morally repellent. An early Academy screening got a lot of publicity when some members brought their issues to Marty himself. Angrily. Thatâ€™s a bad sign, especially since Scorsese is one of the most respected people in the industry.
Most harmful, however, is that "Wolf" is a movie with edge and an angry edge at that. And simply put, edgy movies donâ€™t win Best Picture. Just ask "Zero Dark Thirty," "Do the Right Thing" â€¦ you get the point.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "Does â€˜Wolf of Wall Streetâ€™ indict or condone Jordan Belfortâ€™s behavior (takes a swig of bleach)? Also: Do you think a movie like â€˜Taxi Driverâ€™ could win Best Picture today?"
No Talkbacks for this article.
Post your comment/review now
Disclaimer: Please note that Facebook comments are posted through Facebook and cannot be approved, edited or declined by OnMilwaukee.com. The opinions expressed in Facebook comments do not necessarily reflect those of OnMilwaukee.com or its staff.
Recent Articles & Blogs by Matt Mueller
Published March 31, 2015
There's a movie out in theaters starring Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, and nobody cares. This seems impossible. And then I actually saw "Serena," and ooooooh, it all makes so much sense now.
Published March 30, 2015
Flying is statistically the safest form of transportation. It's a popular sentiment, one commonly recited to restore confidence in the important industry after tragic disasters like the deadly Germanwings crash last week. For "Pilot Error" writer and film producer Roger Rapoport, however, that statement isn't as accurate as we'd like to think.
Published March 29, 2015
For a lot of Hollywood, making a kids movie translates out to making essentially a mobile: a simply distracting mix of color and sound. And that's how you get "Home," another manic Sweet Tarts-colored whizbang to be mentally tossed away like an empty popcorn bucket as soon as the film lets out. Yes, the kids will be sated. For anyone older, however, the cue to leave "Home" to go home likely won't come soon enough.
Published March 26, 2015
By most definitions, director Alejandro Jodorowsky's attempt to adapt Frank Herbert's "Dune" to the big screen in the mid-'70s was a failure. The filmmaker's furiously inventive and imaginative movie never made it to the big screen, but man ... what a trip it would've been, at least certainly judging by Frank Pavich's hypnotically fascinating documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune," showing tonight at 7 p.m. at the UWM Union Theatre.
Published March 25, 2015
I'm starting to get concerned about Jack O'Connell. First there was "Starred Up," in which he plays a violent prison inmate; then he starred in the two-hour beatdown-palooza that was "Unbroken." And now there's "'71," which doesn't even get five seconds in before it's punching O'Connell in the face and dragging him through mud. If he insists on essentially self-flagellating on screen, though, at least it's in the service of a quite good movie.
Published March 25, 2015
2015 is shaping up to be a world tour of beloved classic rock stars. The Rolling Stones are expected to announce a Milwaukee stop ... at some point. Ringo Starr is heading to the Riverside in October, the same month The Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary at the BMO Harris Bradley Center. Also celebrating 50 years of existence: Pink Floyd, hitting the Riverside stage Thursday and Friday night. Well, kind of - in the form of tribute band Brit Floyd.
Published March 23, 2015
If "Divergent" was like "The Hunger Games" took a brick to the head, then "Insurgent" plays like "The Hunger Games" got lost in a brick hail storm. The sequel doubles down on the idiocy, incoherence and creative kleptomania the first film struggled through. Part one made it palatable; part two makes it laughable.
Published March 21, 2015
Early on in the 2014-15 season, the Milwaukee Rep staged "The Color Purple." It's a show actress Felicia P. Fields knows very well; after all, her turn as Sofia in the Broadway musical scored her a Tony nomination for Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Musical back in 2006. It's another familiar show, however, that brings Fields back to Milwaukee: "Low Down Dirty Blues," a celebration of classic blues at its deepest and dirtiest.
Published March 21, 2015
Vampires have gotten a bad rap over the last decade or so,but while the recent vampire trend has provided some pretty craterous, sell-out lows, it's also spawned a fair amount of impressive highs for the notorious neck-nibblers. For example: "What We Do in the Shadows," a hilarious New Zealand import that gushes goofy laughs like a comedy hemophiliac.
Published March 19, 2015
The Uptowner was packed and not just for a late Sunday afternoon. Jock Jams blared from the speakers, and anticipation was in the air. On two TVs at separate ends of the bar, the Wisconsin-Michigan State game was coming down to the wire. But that wasn't the contest the excited and eager crowd was here to see. No, the main event was the Uptowner's third annual beard competition.