DJANGO UNCHAINED

Django Unchained (2012)
Grade: B-
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington

Premise: A bounty hunter frees a slave to help him find a trio of wanted criminals, and after completing the mission agrees to help the slave find his long-lost wife.

Rated R for Strong bloody violence and gore, strong language (including multiple racial slurs), intense emotional content, brief graphic nudity, and a few torture-related images

            My problem with Quentin Tarantino’s movies is not that they’re violent. As a red-blooded, American male movie fan, I’m always up for some butt-kicking, shoot-em-up Action Jackson stuff. It’s not even that the man’s movies are different with a capital D—on the contrary, it’s nice to see movies that don’t take themselves too seriously, that are unique and cheeky stabs at different genres, brimming with quirky dialogue and surprising plot twists that make your typical horror movies, romantic comedies and inspiring true story movies seem all the more bland and perfunctory. No, my problem with Tarantino’s movies can be summarized in one word: excess. I’ve seen five of his films—1994’s Pulp Fiction, 2003’s Kill Bill: Volume 1, 2004’s Volume 2, 2009’s Inglorious Basterds, and now Django Unchained, which came out on Christmas Day of last year—and all of them were at least two hours long (Pulp, Django and Basterds all exceeded two-and-a-half), and all of them could have been shortened by at least twenty minutes. All were stuffed to the brim with sly jokes, cutting sarcasm, ringing irony and intersecting plotlines, the likes of which you wouldn’t see anywhere else. And all of them overuse (and I do mean OVER. USE.) violence to the point of absurdity, to the point of drawing perverse giggles from the audience. There’s no denying the man is a craftsman, that his movies are truly unique and interesting, that actors trip over themselves to get into his films and then come back for second and third tastes—Tarantino’s movies are always events. But, after sitting through the two-hour-forty-five minute Django Unchained, I’m impressed but weary. Too much of a good thing, you might say.

Plot

One frigid night in Texas, circa 1858, a pair of armed men leading a troupe of chained slaves is stopped by a traveling dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2009 for his multilingual role in Basterds), who’s hunting a trio of miscreant cowboys who have a bounty on their heads. When Schultz determines that one of the chained slaves, Django (Jamie Foxx), knows the men he’s seeking and could recognize them by sight, he offers to buy him. When the slave traders refuse, he kills them, unlocks all the slaves, and takes Django with him. A bounty hunter, Schultz takes Django deep into the plantation lands of the south, where they not only find and collect the reward on the men in question—the ‘Brittle brothers’—but also bond when Django admits his real driving goal is finding his wife, beautiful fellow slave Bromhilda (Kerry Washington). When Schultz agrees to help Django find her, they set out, and because she not only derives her name from an old German legend but also speaks fluent German, she actually proves trackable. But it turns out Bromhilda is the property of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a brutal, pompous eccentric who rules a sprawling old family plantation, Candieland. And of course, he has no intention of selling any of his slaves, let alone one unique enough to speak German. Their quest ultimately becomes a match of wits and a race against time as they try to find a way to nonchalantly buy Bromhilda from Candie before Calvin’s head servant (Samuel L. Jackson) finds out why they’re trying to trick his master, and before local unrest over the sight of a well-dressed black man on a horse explodes.

What Works?

Whatever their flaws, Tarantino movies always come equipped with a high entertainment factor, courtesy of rollicking soundtracks, absurd comic situations, show-stopping sight gags, crackling suspense, and a steady undercurrent of knowing, winking humor. Django also contains some attractive visuals (sprawling plantations, snowy mountain-scapes).

But, of course, it’s the characters that always make Tarantino movies memorable, and Django is no different in that regard. As the title character, Jamie Foxx gives his best performnace since his Oscar-winning portrayal of Ray Charles in 2004’s Ray; always aware he’s a black man in a white man’s world, Django oozes rage and hurt—there’s a spectacular scene where Django interrupts the whipping of a young slave girl and whips the daylights out of the white man who was inflicting the punishment. Foxx’s face and body light up with the anger and drama of the moment. And as his object of utmost desire, Ray costar Kerry Washington has a small role but nonetheless wins the audience’s sympathy and care; we want to see her freed and reunited with Django.

Already an Oscar winner thanks to his previous collaboration with Tarantino, Christoph Waltz has snagged this film’s lone acting nomination for this year in the Best Supporting Actor category (he won the Golden Globe already, as well). And while I will say no one can deliver a line in the English language with more panache and delightful I’m-smarter-than-you-and-I-know-it nuance, his being nominated over his other costars is a big surprise, and something of a disappointment. That’s not to fault the ever-watchable Waltz, but it’s because the film’s middle segment is completely stolen by Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. A Golden Globe nominee, the always-admirable DiCaprio is firing on all cylinders scene as Calvin, putting his knack for accents, intensity, and explosive, raging, screaming drama at the fore of his portrayal, which is a stunning and instantly-memorable scene-stealer. The actor will always be associated with Titanic because of that film’s groundbreaking box office and pop culture success, but here, even more than in his twin coming-into-his-own 2006 leading roles (in The Departed and Blood Diamond), DiCaprio shows that you don’t have to be defined by one role, even one in a superduper megahit. It’s not easy to connect the sadistic, frothing-at-the-mouth Calvin with the fresh-faced dreamboat artist of Titanic (Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games actors hoping to have careers free of typecasting, take note). Speaking of actors connected to one role, Django Unchained may be the first movie Samuel L. Jackson has made since Pulp Fiction in which he’s not lampooning his classic Jules Winfield role. Though he does his share of yelling and cursing (which is what we all expect from Jackson), the actor’s hunched posture and sarcastic-servant-mumblings actually took me back to Hattie McDaniel’s Mammy from Gone With the Wind—I guess we’re not used to seeing the intense, loud-mouthed actor in a submissive servant role, but he puts his whole heart into it. Jackson actually steals a few scenes in his own right, with a performance that is both intimidating in its own way, but also, at times, a laugh riot.

Thus, I feel cheated by the Oscars. I can't believe DiCaprio got missed for such a wowzer of a performance, but either he or Jackson would have made a much more interesting nominee than Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Alan Arkin (Argo) or Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook) all of whom felt to me as though they were essentially playing themselevs.

What Doesn’t Work?

First of all, Django is long, and it feels long. I believe they could have cut a good forty-five minutes out of this film and made a perfectly-entertaining two-hour movie. I especially believe this because the last thirty minutes are just a shoot-em-up bloodfest, just as the last acts of Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds were. I quickly became overwhelmed and annoyed by the sheer amount of blood spraying and splattering, and by the amount of people being killed (especially when some of them—particularly the cold-blooded shooting of a white female character—are played for laughs). And also, while Tarantino’s humorous touches are often funny, a few scenes are dragged out so long they just feel like desperate gimmicks, particularly a narrative-stopping scene involving a Jonah Hill cameo and a Ku Klux Klan gathering.

Though I appreciate the type of knowing wit that fills Waltz’s lines, I do wish this film was done just a little more seriously.

Content

It’s Tarantino. Dozens of people get shot in the head, chest, legs, and crotch in bloody shootouts, a man gets ripped apart by dogs, people get whipped and beaten, and people bludgeon each other in a sickening, bare-flesh to-the-death wrestling match. There’s a fair amount of cussing (Samuel L. Jackson is in this movie, remember), but it’s the shocking, desensitizing gore that you’ll remember.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

It’s Tarantino. You’ll see things you’ve never seen, and you’ll hear things you’ve never heard. Django is entertaining, and driven by some bravura performances, but it can be a little too much.

Django Unchained (2012)
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Rated R
Length: 165 minutes

OSCAR NOMINATION REACTIONS, PART 2

A Nine-Year Old, I Dreamed A Dream, And A Whole Host Of Winners: Thoughts on the 2012 Academy Award Nominations (Part 2)

BEST ACTRESS

The nominees: Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Quveznhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Naomi Watts (The Impossible).

-          Count ‘em, folks: this year’s Best Actress nominees range in age from 9 to 85, with stops along the way at 22, 35 and 44. Both Wallis and Riva made history, as they were, respectively, the youngest-ever and oldest-ever Best Actress nominees (and nominees, period, in Riva’s case). This was actually a very competitive year where Chastain and Lawrence were the only people even in the neighborhood of “locks”, because…

The snubs: Marion Cotillard (Rust & Bone), Helen Mirren (Hitchcock), Rachel Weisz (The Deep Blue Sea)

-          You know it’s a tough year when the Academy leaves three former winners out in the cold. Again, they already have their trophies, so how angry can they be? Still, many doubted two actresses from foreign-made films would get nominated (that’s Wallis and Riva, I remind you). And Naomi Watts got really lucky that The Impossible started hitting theaters last week.

The Favorite?

Umm…I’m going to say Jennifer Lawrence, even though Jessica Chastain just beat her for the Critics’ Choice Award. In three years, Lawrence has rocketed to the top of the A-list (here is a big opportunity for the Academy to seem cool and hip by awarding someone popular and recognizable, and having a legitimate case for doing it). She got nominated for Best Actress at 20 for Winter’s Bone, making her one of the youngest Best Actress nominees ever (okay, so, we all know Quveznhane Wallis is smirking at that, but still). Then she grabbed the plumb role of the young Raven/Mystique in the X-Men reboot, which was a big hit, then she grabbed the even plumber role of the lead in the movie adaptations of the crazy-popular Hunger Games books. The first film, released this past March, was a mega hit that has, to date, won her an MTV Movie Award and a People’s Choice Award and bagged $400-plus-million domestically. Then she got rave review after rave review for her performance as a confused, lonely, “different” widow in Silver Linings Playbook. And, incredibly, she’s already had to refocus her attention because she’s been in Hawaii filming the next Hunger Games. And soon she’ll be filming the next X-Men. But for the record, she was very good in Silver Linings—she lucked into a very multifaceted role in which she got to cry, dance, yell and make a public scene, cuss people out, swoon, and, best and most amazing of all, out-argue Robert DeNiro.  

Upset Potential?

A lot, because Jessica Chastain just won the Critics’ Choice Award. And there’s no chance for an earlier comparison because, at the Golden Globes (winners announced this Sunday night), Chastain is nominated in the Drama category while Lawrence is in the Musical/Comedy group. Anyway, Chastain got great reviews in the sort of role (a CIA intel expert hunting Osama Bin Laden) that women rarely get. I wasn’t blown away by her performance in Zero Dark Thirty, but she, too, is a very well-respected and obviously-talented actress (who, by the way, has been in a ton of movies in the past few years, and got nominated just last year for her role in The Help). I can’t speak to the other nominees much because I haven’t seen those movies, but I do know that Meryl Streep upset in this category last year when her performance was the main reason her movie, The Iron Lady, was even thought about come Oscar time (kind of like Naomi Watts and The Impossible). And the Academy loves to bring on the emotion by awarding old actors who thought they’d never have a shot (like Riva; Christopher Plummer, Jessica Tandy, Alan Arkin and Helen Mirren are among the gray hairs who’ve won overdue Oscars in recent years).  Plus, Amour got great reviews, and Riva’s performance is one of the big reasons why. And that’s not to mention, the last time there was a big spoiler in this category (2007, when Marion Cotillard shocked Julie Christie and the rest of us), it was by an actress in a French-made and French-speaking film, which Amour is. Oh, and finally, I’m just going to go out on a limb and say the nomination’s the honor for the 9-year-old Wallis, no matter how cute it would be to see her on the podium.

Will Win: I really want to say Jennifer Lawrence with certainty, but I can’t. But if the award goes to someone other than her or Jessica Chastain, it would be a surprise.

Should Win: Again, I haven’t seen The Impossible, Amour, or Beasts of the Southern Wild, but I’m going to say Lawrence. She worked hard and completely stole the show in Silver Linings Playbook. (I also can’t help feeling that she’s not a super talented actress, and that Silver Linings made great use of her strengths and may be her best opportunity to win an Oscar)

Should Have Been Nominated: I don’t really have an opinion on this because I didn’t see any of the also-rans I mentioned, but Helen Mirren’s been hitting home run after home run lately, so I’m sure she was great playing Hitchcock’s wife.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees: Alan Arkin (Argo), Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook), Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master), Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

-          This was the easiest category to predict, because four of these guys have been penciled in for months, and it was who, not if, for the major players in Django Unchained. With Waltz winning that contest, we here have a category in which all five nominees are previous Oscar winners. That’s right: all five.

The snubs: Leonardo DiCaprio (Django Unchained), Samuel L. Jackson (Django Unchained), Javier Bardem (Skyfall), Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being A Wallflower)

-          Again, it was pretty much guaranteed someone from Django Unchained was going to get nominated, given Tarantino’s penchant for creating crackling dialogue, explosive encounters and memorable personalities. Waltz’s beating the respected DiCaprio isn’t a huge surprise, but I had started to hear a lot of buzz for Jackson recently. Bardem and Miller—though I wish it were otherwise—were never more than extremely long shots.

The Favorite?

There is none. Not that I know of, anyway. Four of them were always going to be nominated, and the fifth is hardly a surprise. But there is a wide range in the importance of the performance to the respective film. Hoffman was practically a co-lead in The Master, and, from what I hear, the same is true of Waltz in Django. On the other hand, Alan Arkin probably had fifteen minutes of screen time in Argo, and Jones had two memorable but short scenes in Lincoln. DeNiro, the third-billed actor in Silver Linings, was right in the middle. So, who could it be? It’s been the longest since DeNiro won (he won his second Oscar in 1980; Jones won in ’92, Hoffman in ’05, Arkin in ’06 and Waltz in ’09), but that doesn’t mean much. I have a hard time picturing DeNiro winning, though (unless—once again—the unlikely happens and Silver Linings Playbook buzzsaws through the major categories). But I would say Philip Seymour Hoffman gave the strongest of the performances I saw. He put his knack for seeming like the smartest person in the room, his knack for looking and sounding in control, and his split-second explosive temper all side by side in a truly dynamic performance.

Upset Potential

A lot, I guess, since there’s no real favorite. We’ll probably know more after the Golden Globes, for which DeNiro did not get nominated and Waltz’s co-star DiCaprio joined the others (whoa, what if DiCaprio wins the Globe; that won’t help Oscar forecasts at all!). It’s a real tossup. But I just have to say, though I’m a fan of Tommy Lee Jones, his performance was so small on the canvas of Lincoln that I’d be a little irked if he snagged it and beat out the likes of Hoffman.

Will Win: No idea. We’ll know more after Sunday night.

Should Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman. Even though I wasn’t a big fan of The Master, his terrific performance reminded me what a great actor he is.

Should Have Been Nominated: I loved both Javier Bardem and Ezra Miller, who gave scene-stealing performances in Skyfall and Perks of Being A Wallflower, respectively. If it were up to me, I’d replace Arkin and Jones with these two. But it doesn't matter.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees: Amy Adams (The Master), Sally Field (Lincoln), Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables), Helen Hunt (The Sessions), Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

-          Jacki Weaver’s a big surprise; though she was nominated in this category two years ago, she didn’t get a lot of advance buzz for Silver Linings, probably because there were three other actors (Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro) in her movie receiving more attention. Otherwise, it’s a strong and nostalgic group, with Sally Field getting her first nomination in 20-something years and Hunt getting her first since winning Best Actress in 1997. Hathaway’s been the lead buzz-getter for Les Mis. And as for Adams, well, I know she’s an Oscar favorite, having been nominated three other times, but her role was small and the most memorable thing I can remember her doing was reading a porno aloud (something even Joaquin Phoenix’s perverted alcoholic didn’t like).

The snubs: Maggie Smith (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Nicole Kidman (The Paperboy)

-          While Adams, Field and Hathaway were locks and Hunt was close, Weaver’s spot was figured to be up for grabs between this pair of former winners, who got standout recognition for movies that otherwise got fairly mixed reviews.

The Favorite?

Lincoln was so popular and well-reviewed, and two-time Best Actress winner Sally Field is so well-liked, that she might have been the favorite in another year for her fiery performance as Honest Abe’s legendarily off-kilter first lady. But Anne Hathaway is the favorite here, especially since Les Mis has opened and gotten great word of mouth. While she’s pretty much only in the movie’s first half hour, her role as a poor, suffering woman who loses everything (even a tooth and the majority of her hair), is forced to serve as a prostitute for money, and then sings the emotional showstopper “I Dreamed A Dream”, has made her the clear front-runner. Her big tear-jerking one-take delivery of “Dream” is one of the movie scenes from this year that everyone is talking about.

Upset Potential?

It’s hard to say who is a bigger lock, Hathaway here or Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor. If the sky falls, though, could the winner be Adams, who has been nominated three times but has yet to catch a break?

Will Win: Anne Hathaway.

Should Win: I’m not going to argue. “I Dreamed A Dream” was amazing, and people have won this award on less.

Should Have Been Nominated: It would have been nice to see another beloved, former winner (Maggie Smith) nominated, but this is a solid group.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS REACTIONS, Part 1

The Snubs, The Spielberg, and Daniel Day: Thoughts on the 2012 Academy Award Nominations (Part 1)

I wonder how the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences go about nominating movies for their year-end awards. I really do. I mean, hundreds of feature films are released each year—some long, some short, some live action, some animated, some in English, a bunch in different foreign languages, some documentaries. How do the thousands of Academy members come up with a cohesive list of nominees for things like Best Picture and Best Actor and stuff? I’m curious. Does the Academy President and Board of Directors see a bunch of movies and then come up with a pool of ‘potential nominees’ and recommend the other members see them and pick their Top Fives? Do they listen to advance buzz on movies and then read critics’ reviews and go see the most hyped? Do they just all make sure they see certain talked-about movies and then write out their Top Fives (or Tens, or Twenties) and the five most-mentioned people/movies are nominated? How does it work?

It must be hard to be a voting member of the AMPAS. Not just because you have to pick five actors or actresses or movies you especially liked out of the scores-maybe hundreds-you saw during a given year, but because you have to make it relevant. People who vote on and give out awards on anything are going to be questioned and criticized for their decisions, but movies are a special thing. Most people go to movies for entertainment. They want to get away. And that’s never truer then in an age when unemployment is up, violent crime is up, our political system is in shambles, our economy is trending downward, and gas prices and taxes are up. People want to be entertained. Thus, they’re not always up for the most dramatic, artistic, creative movies made. And everyone has their own favorite movie and actor and actress. The difference between the average person’s taste in movies and the members of the prestigious Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always been significant, but it’s never been more so when movies are both fighting the cynicism and know-it-all attitude of the modern age, but also when movies are less perceived as an art or a treat, and more seen as just another thing. Just another alternative for entertainment, along with the Internet and TV and video games and music and iPods and blogs and short Youtube videos, et cetera. Heck, a lot of people view movies illegally online these days, or otherwise acquire them without paying, so there’s even less consideration that they’re some kind of art. Now, people in general like movies too much to just stop caring or stop wanting to see movies, but most of them don’t give a fart about what is considered the best or the favorite of a group of movie critics and studio bosses and other people who wear suits and ties and make six figures just being involved in the ‘business’ of movies. And they really don’t give a fart enough to watch the presentation of these “prestigious”, “proud tradition”, “honorable” awards in a four-hour TV awards show that is already kind of boring to watch even without frequent commercial breaks. Not when they can watch their favorite episodes of a sit com or TV drama online without commercials.

And, of course, the common man’s taste in movies (and in most cases, the common man’s taste in movies equals his taste in entertainment) tends to differ from someone who treats movies as a business or an art or some combination of the two. For instance, the three most-seen movies of 2012—The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hunger Games—combined for zero Oscar nominations. Zero. None. Diddly. The new James Bond movie, Skyfall, which has set the new box-office high-water mark for the 50-year-old franchise? One, for its song. The new Hobbit movie some people waited nine years to see after the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings franchise? Only a few minor nominations, for makeup and art direction. It has happened where the most popular, lucrative movie around in a given year also happened to be something of real note, something of quality the Academy appreciated (Titanic, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Rocky, Forrest Gump, Braveheart), but these tend to be the exception to the rule. The Oscar acting nominations usually feature a few well-known names but the movies are usually foreign-made or small-budget, limited-release features the average person never even heard of, let alone saw. So interest wanes.

Anyway, I’m just curious how it works for members of The Academy, because while I knew from advance buzz and preliminary awards’ shows and prediction blogs and critics’ choice groups who the people were going to be, the announced nominations still managed to surprise and disappoint me (like no love for The Hobbit). But having seen a lot of the movies and just being interested in this biggest of movie awards shows, I have to say a few words about the major categories.

BEST PICTURE

The nominees: Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

-          None of these surprised me, as they were all predicted. I didn’t see the foreign-made Amour or Beasts, and I didn’t seen Django because I’m not a big fan of director/writer Quentin Tarantino’s edgy/gory style, but I saw all six of the others. Les Miserables was my favorite.

The snubs: Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

-          There are ten possible slots for Best Picture, but only nine nominees, even in a stacked year. I’m surprised the Academy didn’t try to earn some street cred by filling the last slot with a mainstream blockbuster like Dark Knight or Skyfall; there would have been no shame in doing so, also, considering both got excellent reviews from critics.

The Favorite?

At this point, the frontrunner has to be Lincoln, which has impeccable credentials (true American history, a legendary historical figure at its center, an inspiring story, Academy Award winners Steven Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones all involved), was very well-reviewed, got great public word of mouth and became a bonafide hit ($144 million to date). It led all movies with 12 Academy Award nominations, and its grand, dramatic, heart-tugging happenings are the stuff legendary Oscar winners are made of.

Upset Potential?

Not too much. To the surprise of many, the directors of Argo, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty and Les Miserables were not nominated separately (more on that later) in the Best Director category, and, apparently, cases where a film won Best Picture when its director was not at least nominated are very rare. That’s funny, because I’d otherwise have said the very well-reviewed Argo and Zero Dark Thirty were nipping at Lincoln’s heels in the race for the top honor, especially because Zero’s director/screenwriter team of Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal won all the big prizes for their thematically/stylistically similar film, The Hurt Locker, in 2009. So, if the hypothesis about the directors’ snubs damaging these movies’ chances is true…

Could Silver Linings Playbook be a possible upset contender? It’s based on a well-received book, has made a respectable $34 million in very limited theatrical release, received nominations in all four acting categories-a rare feat-and its director, David O. Russell, got nominated in the director category ahead of the aforementioned snubs who all directed more complex movies. Silver Linings didn’t get Lincoln’s reviews, but it seems to have legitimately warmed Academy members’ hearts. So, if there’s a movie that might have a shot at overthrowing the mighty Lincoln, it could be David O. Russell’s little movie about screwed up people. So…

Will Win: Lincoln is the safe bet. Important, majestic movies that go for the grand message almost always win the top honor (The King’s Speech, A Beautiful Mind, Forrest Gump, The English Patient, etc…).

Should Win: I liked Silver Linings, but not as much as I liked Argo and Les Miserables. I  liked Les Mis better, but I thought Argo was a really good, really impressive movie.

Should Have Been Nominated: I want to say The Hobbit, but I really did think the well-crafted and critically-praised Skyfall would get nominated here.

 

BEST DIRECTOR

The nominees: Michael Haneke (Amour), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

-          This category made idiots of pretty much everybody. I doubt there’s a single person in the world who predicted these would be the last five standing. Oh, Spielberg was always a lock, and former winner Ang Lee was pretty close, too, but all year the safe money was on The Big Three of Spielberg, Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) and Ben Affleck (Argo), with Tom Hooper peeking through the window for Les Mis. Quentin Tarantino and his outré tastes also have always had the Academy members’ respect (if not their love), and Django has gotten his usual solid reviews. So what the heck happened? Again, I didn’t see Amour or Beasts of the Southern Wild, though I’m sure they’re good movies, and I knew Haneke was well-respected, but still….wow…

The snubs: Affleck, Bigelow, Hooper, Tarantino and Sam Mendes (Skyfall)

-          Seriously, former winner Bigelow and the resurgent, very well-respected Affleck (an Oscar winner in 1997 for his original screenplay for Good Will Hunting) were LOCKS, with Hooper right behind them. I’m legitimately amazed—and a little angry. I didn’t love Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, but I thought Tom Hooper and Ben Affleck deserved this honor. Without question.

The Favorite?

Well, this category just taught us that nobody knows anything, but Steven Spielberg is one of the all-time greats who’s won two Best Director trophies (for 1993’s Schindler’s List and 1998’s Saving Private Ryan), and Lincoln is his first legitimate hit in a while. His last few nominations came for movies (2005’s Munich, last year’s Warhorse) that got mixed reviews from critics, and were seen by nobody else. Despite its often narrow focus, Lincoln was a big movie with a lot of moving parts—and a depiction of important history at stake—and the big guy nailed it. Plus, a third Oscar would put him in a tie for second-place all time, behind only the legendary John Ford and his four.

Upset Potential?

I would have said Affleck in a heartbeat, what with Argo’s great reviews (it was Roger Ebert’s favorite film of 2012), terrific word of mouth, and unexpectedly robust box office ($110 million to date). I actually could see it happening. With him out of the picture, though, I’d say there’s scant chance for an upset unless the Academy loved Silver Linings Playbook THAT much, as I mentioned it might. If the night becomes a Silver Linings lovefest, expect David O. Russell to get swept up along with it.

Will Win: Steven Spielberg. The safe bet, and, really, who the heck is going to argue?

Should Win: Ben Affleck. Sigh. But I do know a lot of people like Michael Haneke.

Should Have Been Nominated: BEN AFFLECK! And Tom Hooper.

BEST ACTOR

The nominees: Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master), Denzel Washington (Flight)

-          Not at all surprised. I’m actually quite glad these are the five nominees, because I saw all five movies and therefore can adequately assess the competition (it makes me feel like I know a lot).

The snubs: John Hawkes (The Sessions), Richard Gere (Arbitrage), Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained), Anthony Hopkins (Hitchcock)

-          Former nominee John Hawkes was in the conversation all the way up until Joaquin Phoenix was announced; his ouster was a legitimate surprise. Former winner Foxx got unlucky, as did Anthony Hopkins, whose one-time Big Deal movie Hitchcock ended up completely forgotten. And it must stink to be Richard Gere, who won a Golden Globe for an eventual Best Picture winner (Chicago) back in the day and yet missed out on an Oscar nod, then produced a great performance in Arbitrage in a year when Best Actor is really crowded at the top. He would have had a much better chance at being nominated last year when the category was weaker overall.

The Favorite?

Daniel Day-Lewis. That’s an easy one. The man already owns two Best Actor trophies (for 1987’s My Left Foot and 2007’s There Will Be Blood), but he’s pretty much guaranteed to win again. His third Oscar would put him in rarefied air with the likes of Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson—only five actors have won as many as three Oscars. The man is such a darned good actor, though. Isn’t it amazing that an Irishman was able to totally put on the mystique, aura, majesty, and top hat of a true-blooded American who died back in 1865, and yet somehow hoodwinked millions of people into believing they were actually watching the man? I, for one, felt like I was watching the Abraham Lincoln, not an actor playing him. If Day-Lewis were to not win this award, it might be The biggest shock on the night. Speaking of which…

Upset Potential?

Not much. It’s like a replay of 2007, when Day-Lewis’ performance as a steely, cold-hearted oil baron sent George Clooney, Tommy Lee Jones, Viggo Mortensen and Johnny Depp packing (I still remember a red carpet interview with Clooney, nominated for Michael Clayton, who tried hard to look really happy and content while he talked about “other actors who were supposed to win” and how he was just trying to enjoy the night). It’s a little bit of a bummer, because this is a very strong group. Joaquin Phoenix is lucky the Academy gave him his third nomination even after he said, in a much-talked about October interview, that he considered the Oscars “bull****”. And then The Master went and died a really quick death at the box office. Still, his performance was good enough (in a yelling, screaming, twitching, wild-man alcoholic kind of way) that in most years he’d be a serious threat. And in another year we might be talking about Denzel Washington’s chances of joining the Three Oscars club after he scored his first nomination in 11 years playing an alcoholic, drug addled airline pilot. Popular actor Bradley Cooper scored a huge win being nominated as the overly-chatty would-be family man, but this is one award Silver Linings won’t win. And then Hugh Jackman actually made people forget he ever played Wolverine by singing his butt off and leading a terrific ensemble cast in the 2.5 hour epic musical Les Mis. But the fact remains that a really good Daniel Day-Lewis performance is simply better than a really good performance by anybody else.

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln. Pretty much no one doubts this.

Should Win: I’m not saying DDL shouldn’t win, but I admit: I’d love to see Hugh Jackman take this thing home.

Should Have Been Nominated: I didn’t see The Sessions, but John Hawkes’ performance as a lonely quadriplegic was the most buzzed-about male performance not nominated this year.

ZERO DARK THIRTY

ZERO DARK THIRTY (2012)

Grade: B

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, Kyle Chandler, Mark Strong and James Gandolfini

Premise: A CIA Intelligence Agent spends years researching the movements and possible whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Rated R for language, intense, bloody violent content, a scene of torture, and brief nudity

            Every year, I see movies that are adored by critics and showered with awards and voting committees’ year-end honors, yet, when I see them, the main thing I think is “solid, but unspectacular”. Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, already an Academy Award nominee for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Original Screenplay, joins that group. Obviously, it’s above reproach as a crafted piece of work, it tells an interesting true story that everyone over a certain age knows at least a little bit about, and ends with a riveting half hour sequence that, while fictionalized, you’d swear was real. However, lacking a really engaging narrative core is a problem for a movie that exceeds two and a half hours and contains very little humor and even less actual character development. I knew what it was about coming in-like I did with Lincoln-so I expected this no-frills sort of moviemaking, but I left disappointed that I wasn’t really captured.

Plot: After 9/11, one man became the most sought/wanted person in the world. I’m sure you know who I’m talking about. Scores of people in multiple government agencies were set the task of finding him, be it through satellite photos, intelligence files or interrogations of rumored subordinates. One such person, Zero Dark Thirty invites us to believe, was Maya (Jessica Chastain), a fictional person but one who nonetheless embodies the determination, stress and strain of the many faceless people who looked for Osama Bin Laden for nearly a decade, often doing so while the average person believed the man was dead. A straight-laced, no-distractions workhorse, Maya is sent to Kuwait to help oversee the interrogation of men with ties to Al Qaeda. She’s at first alarmed by the brutal tactics employed by Dan (Jason Clarke), the local anti-terrorist specialist, but she begins to pick up on the trade, questioning handcuffed men and even bribing or lying to them to get them to tell her what she wants. Against the advice of her colleagues and superiors (Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle), she single-mindedly pursues an Al Ahmed, believed to be one of “the next three” in Al Qaeda’s pyramid of power, after bin Laden. When an important contact springs a trap that kills one of Maya’s best friends in the field, she considers giving up, but when al Ahmed resurfaces, she chases him. With the help of more tech-savvy colleagues and some locals who know the local area and language, she’s able to track him to a large statehouse in Pakistan, one with iron gates, a sixteen-foot protective wall, and every protection it can be afforded. And satellite surveillance begins to suggest someone else may be living there, as well as al Ahmed. Believing it’s Osama bin Laden, Maya and her department scramble to gather enough intel to convince their superiors to move on it.

What Works?

Like director Kathryn Bigelow’s last film, 2009’s Best Picture The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty is a deglamorized, gritty film, one that sneers at suggestions of romance or sentiment and prefers to arrange dynamite suspense sequences. In this regard, it succeeds admirably. It’s impressive that a movie that uses a lot of technical jargon and a lot of confusing Arab names can, at times, captivate so easily. There are some great suspense sequences, including a depiction of a night-time Navy Seal raid that can rival anything in March’s Act of Valor; even though we know what’s going to happen, we’re still unsure.

For leading lady Jessica Chastain, her role as Maya caps a mesmerizing two-year stretch in which she’s appeared in some 12 movies and become an A-list star. For this film, she’s received her second Academy Award nomination, and, while I won’t say she doesn’t deserve it, I just have to say…Maya is kind of a colorless role. Chastain gets to shed a few tears at one point and gets to yell and cuss at another, but she’s not an action heroine, she’s not a soldier, not a politician, not a speech-maker, and we know nothing about her. She’s not given a family, a love interest, a backstory, or any facts other than she wants to find Bin Laden so badly she spends almost ten years looking for him. It’s an interesting role (and a rather curious choice for such talented, expressive actress), but not amazing. It doesn’t help Chastain’s case that most of the other major players in the cast are expressive actors, too. Clarke rivets as a torture expert, the always great Mark Strong pitches a few fits as a hotheaded CIA bigwig, and Jennifer Ehle brings spunk and energy to her role as an intel colleague, and all liven up the scenery more than Chastain.

What Doesn’t Work?

While it’s a masterpiece of editing and cinematography and suspense, Zero Dark Thirty is, like its leading lady, kind of colorless as a whole. There’s no character development at all; just forward progress in the story. And even the Navy Seal sequence feels like it’s from a different film. Ditto for the opening, a prologue composed of real-life 9-11 phone calls from people in air traffic control towers and the World Trade Center during the terrorist attacks; such an intense, emotional beginning seems to call for a movie that isn’t so brisk and business-like. Unlike, say, Lincoln—another highly-touted monolith of a movie that underwhelmed me recently; one that poured on the sentiment—Zero Dark Thirty positively flees the idea of sentiment so that the viewer walks out after 2.5 hours and goes “…okay, well that was cool” and goes on about their day. Pretty much what I did.

Content: Dark Thirty has made a lot of headlines for its alleged claim that the torture of Arabs led to key facts that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Politicians have been outraged by this idea, which is personified in a few scenes of Clarke’s method man waterboarding and taunting a feeble, bruised prisoner, then putting a dog collar on him and stuffing him in a box. They’re intense scenes, to be sure, but I wasn’t appalled (I’ve seen at least two other movies—The Expendables and Safe House—where people were waterboarded; I was expected something bloodier). Anyways, other than those scenes, which take place early on, Zero’s R rating comes courtesy of a sprinkling of F and MF words and the pools of blood spilling from people shot by Navy Seals.

Bottom Line: It’s an interesting film (if you’ve been DYING to know just how Seal Team Six killed Bin Laden, hurry and see this movie), but Zero Dark Thirty is a lot like a lot of other Oscar-bait-type thrillers: it’s too busy and smart and important to be really accessible to the viewer. And that’s a problem.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Screenplay by Mark Boal

Rated R

Length: 157 minutes