Bugonia

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Starring: Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Aidan Delbis, Stavros Halkias, Alicia Silverstone
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

When it comes to successful director/actor collaborations, it's hard to find a recent creative pairing that's resulted in as many divisive opinions as the teaming of Greek filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos and Oscar winner Emma Stone. And while their eccentric black comedies have pulled increasingly daring performances out of her, it's also further catapulted the career of an actress who's proven to be an ideal match for his idiosyncratic sensibilities. So just when it's popular for dissenters to complain they've worked together too much or a break would do both some good, a film like Bugonia comes along, reminding us what a terrible idea that is.    

For a little while, you may even trick yourself into believing this is somehow more accessible than The Favourite, Poor Things or Kinds of Kindness. Don't worry, it's not. Though undeniably funny at points, this is Lanthimos' bleakest, headiest film, despite the relatively straightforward, small scale thriller it masquerades as in its opening minutes. A scathing, pessimistic social commentary with a certifiably insane final act, it both confounds and enthralls, taking us on a wild trip down this Kubrickian rabbit hole by way of The Twilight Zone. Only when it's over will it start to make complete sense, forcing us to backtrack and reevaluate everything we originally assumed was true. 

High-powered pharmaceutical company CEO Michelle Fuller (Stone) is abducted and held captive in the basement of unhinged conspiracy theorist Teddy Gatz (Jesse Plemons) and his autistic cousin Don (Aidan Delbis). Accused of being a member of the Andromedan alien species, Teddy theorizes her kind have come to destroy the planet by killing off the honey bees and enslaving the human race. Shaving her head and covering her body in antihistamine cream, he gives Michelle four days to arrange a meeting with the Andromedan emperor before the lunar eclipse.

As Teddy eagerly anticipates the mothership's arrival on Earth, the kidnapped executive vehemently  denies his wacky accusations, offering to cut a deal for her release and warning him the authorities will eventually in. But as Teddy tortures Michelle, it's revealed her company's botched drug trial left his mother Sandy (Alicia Silverstone) comatose, shedding more light on a likely motive. But with Michelle plotting her escape as the eclipse rapidly approaches, Teddy remains committed to saving humanity.

Adapted from the 2003 South Korean film Save The Green Planet! this closely follows the original's narrative while still having its own unique and distinctive vision. It begins intriguingly enough, with an unkempt Teddy and Don training for something you'd assume is extremely bizarre just by how they talk, act and even look. But recreational beekeeper Teddy is the obvious leader, his brain so riddled from the dark web he's now dragged his emotionally vulnerable cousin along for the ride. He lectures a confused Don on aliens but it's unclear what his specific plan to stop it entails, at least beyond some yoga and a shopping trip to Goodwill. 

In juxtaposing Teddy's dark, isolated house from an earlier era with Michelle's ultra-modern residence, it soon comes into focus how their vastly different worlds will collide. She may be the target, but possesses more than enough self-defense skills to make her abduction difficult for these two bumbling country bumpkins. In her opening scenes she comes across as the portrait of control and composure at company headquarters, but the real power struggle begins once she's drugged, shaved bald and shackled to a bed. Teddy calls the shots, manipulating a hapless, reluctant Don to follow his lead as he tries to coax Michelle into admitting she's an alien with violent and antagonistic interrogation techniques. 

Teddy puts all three of them in a no-win situation since an alien isn't likely to admit they are one, especially if their species is orchestrating what he predicts. And even in the unlikely scenario that's true, he's not the guy topping anyone's list to rescue the human race from such a catastrophic threat. So when faced with this irrational captor, Michelle attempts to talk and reason her way out, verbally manipulating Teddy with the same cutthroat, disingenuous tactics she uses as a CEO. 

Stone gives her most complex, ferocious performance yet as character with unreadable dimensions, refusing to roll over or give in, no matter how precarious the situation gets. Physically and mentally, Michelle's put through the wringer while Stone ensures we never have her figured out, even as our feelings toward this woman shift with each shocking and unsettling development. She'll also undergo the most memorable one take head shaving we've seen since Natalie Portman in V For Vendetta.

While Michelle stands her ground opposite the trigger tempered kidnapper, we sense her battle might be as much about gaining the upper hand, even if Lanthimos knows audience sympathy will lay with a kidnapped woman over two men who aren't all mentally there. Michelle wisely plays Teddy's game before turning her attention toward the empathetic Don. Viewers will desperately want to believe she cares what happens to him, but he's just a pawn for both, and maybe the film's only true innocent victim. 

Suspicions Michelle is hiding something grow when flashbacks reveal how Teddy's mom suffered from her company's malfeasance. And the more we learn about Teddy's backstory, the murkier our feelings about her get, though not enough to seriously entertain his tinfoil rantings. The early introduction of local cop Casey (Stavros Halkias) appears to be obvious foreshadowing, but Lanthimos also subverts those expectations as the character unlocks another facet to Teddy's tragic past, confirming he's had it far worse than originally thought.

Recently called on to carry more films of this magnitude as a lead, Plemons brings a needed pathos to this conspiracy nut harboring a deeply personal grudge. He's so off-the-wall in his extreme methods that we cringe at the thought there's any truth to his ramblings, even as the actor subtly hints at how we may have seriously underestimated him. A more overlooked turn comes from autistic actor Aidan Delbis, whose Don lacks the emotional bandwith to deal with this situation, crumbling as he's led astray by a cousin he loves, but can't challenge.

Upon reaching the final act, there's a temptation to assume how it concludes, only to be blown away when these characters make decisions that cause us to rethink what's actually happening. What started as a thriller with satirical underpinnings takes an unpredictably crazy detour in its closing half hour, traveling down a road where any number of potential outcomes seem possible. That Lanthimos ends this as he does speaks volumes, further confirming he's a filmmaker incapable of playing it safe or taking the easy way out. So much so that even those on the fence are still forced to admit the execution is unforgettably haunting and ripe for repeated viewings, if only to confirm what we just saw with our own eyes.                        

Eddington

Director: Ari Aster
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, Austin Butler, Luke Grimes, Deirdre O'Connell, Micheal Ward, Amélie Hoeferle, Clifton Collins Jr., William Belleau, Matt Gomez Hidaka, Cameron Mann, Rachel de la Torre
Running Time: 149 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

A local mayoral race turns ugly in writer/director Ari Aster's ambitiously bizarre Eddington, a film that holds a mirror up to all the social and political turmoil over the past five years. And for those who patiently waited for a big screen effort to tackle the pandemic and all the controversial chaos surrounding it, your day has come. Now with a little distance to reflect on that tragic absurdity, the creative mind behind Heriditary, Midsommar and Beau is Afraid responds with a gloriously inscrutable mess that ties viewers in knots trying to decipher its intentions. 

Part multi-character study, part Western, part crime thriller and all satire, it's set in a universe where everyone's a lunatic, regardless of where their beliefs or convictions fall. It's also unpredictable, surprising by just how much its initially limited scope expands once the complications pile on, revealing the worst in human nature. Not without its flaws and prone to flying off the rails, Aster entertainingly makes up for it with some wild performances and an off-the-wall premise that cleverly skewers the current culture wars.

It's 2020 and Mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal) has implemented a lockdown in the town of Eddington, New Mexico in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, enforcing mask mandates supported by the Governor. This policy raises the ire of sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix), who believes it's trampling on citizen's freedoms and makes plans to run against Ted in the upcoming election, despite disapproval from his emotionally unstable wife Louise (Emma Stone) and her conspiracy theorist mom, Dawn (Deirdre O' Connell). 

While Joe unsuccessfully tries to maintain law and order alongside officers Guy (Luke Grimes) and Michael (Micheal Ward), Ted's son Eric (Matt Gomez Hidaka) and his friend Brian (Cameron Mann) join the town's Black Lives Matter protests to win the affections of progressively liberal classmate Sarah (Amélie Hoeferle). With protests getting out of hand, Louise and Dawn inviting enigmatic cult leader Jefferson Peak (Austin Butler) into Joe's home as he tries to derail Ted's re-election bid. But when a single, shocking act of violence occurs, more trouble arrives at Eddington's doorstep, unexpectedly threatening the lives of its residents.

That the film's first twenty minutes centers entirely around an ongoing argument over masks should give you an idea what we're in for. It's clear in the very first scene when Joe's reprimanded by neighboring law enforcement before getting into another confrontation with Mayor Ted at a bar and supermarket, lighting the fuse that further ignites their bitter rivalry. And they have a long history, most of which stems from Joe's inability to get over Louise's previous relationship with Ted. But once Joe clumsily declares his mayoral candidacy out of pure spite, all bets are off, just as Eddington spirals out of control following  George Floyd's murder. 

In taking us back to a year we still haven't really moved past, the narrative evolves into a feature length South Park episode where only extremes exist and every group's a target for mocking. Whether it's anti-maskers or white BLM protesters, Aster get his shots in, and while a lot of the characterizations are intentionally exaggerated for satirical effect, this wouldn't work without the recognizable truths accompanying it. But it's Joe's complete lack of impulse control and common sense that causes him to make a spectacularly stupid decision, opening the floodgates to hell for his small town.

Between murders, racism, anti-racism, police corruption, conspiracy theories, cults and Antifa, Aster throws everything he can at the wall and a lot of it actually sticks. Against your better judgment, it's tough to look way, especially during a violent, action packed shootout that recalls A24's other politically charged take on the times, Alex Garland's underappreciated Civil War. But where that film had a clearer, more sober mission statement, this fluctuates wildly between over-the-top satire and drama, often calling into question how it all fits. 

It's really the direction and performances that hold it together, further solidifying Joaquin Phoenix's twisted genius in the kind of quirky, eccentric role no one does better, flawlessly juggling the dangerous and comical at once. A somewhat underutilized Stone and Butler steal the scenes they're given while the perfectly cast Pascal justifies his alleged overexposure with a terrific supporting turn as this potentially crooked mayor in bed with big tech. 

Inching toward a violent conclusion with no absolutes and only shades of grey, this highlights just how far the political landscape has shifted since over a decade ago, when much of this material would have played as pure fantasy. Even if a twist late in the game forces viewers to reevaluate what they've seen in the context of a JD Vance or Kyle Rittenhouse origin story, attempting to extract a right or left wing agenda seems beside the point. While spitting out enough ideas to leave us wondering what it's trying to say, Aster instead captures the anxiety and paranoia gripping the country with an equally divisive film that's well worth the watch.                                        

Poor Things

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Starring: Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, Ramy Youssef, Christopher Abbott, Suzy Bemba, Jerrod Carmichael, Kathryn Hunter, Vicki Pepperdine, Margaret Qualley, Hanna Schygulla, Keeley Forsyth
Running Time: 142 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's hard to pinpoint the exact moment Yorgos Lanthimos's Poor Things pivots from an extremely weird, Frankenstein-inspired horror fantasy into something really special, but you'll know when it gets there. An oddly acquired taste that only grows stronger with each wacky, sensational development, in some ways it stylistically recalls the best of Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton before both got swallowed up by the system. But while still somehow managing to feel completely original, it's also a great twisted social satire, unironically navigating morally complicated waters to provide a thrilling, frequently hilarious experience. 

Given the MPAA's famously low tolerance for sex and nudity, Lanthimos's ability to escape with an 'R' rating is a feat in itself, as what starts as a Universal monster movie morphs into this globe trekking, fantastical comedy-adventure. With a steampunk infused look and imaginative production design, its atmosphere is unmatched by anything else in the genre, even as it's sometimes difficult to classify what that genre exactly is. It covers a lot of ground, all of which is navigated in Emma Stone's fearless performance. And while everyone's been talking about her willingness to go all out for the film's many graphic and controversial scenes, that's secondary to the other unexpected places she takes this unique character.

In Victorian London, an eccentric, facially disfigured surgeon named Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) is looking after the childlike Bella (Stone), a young woman who while pregnant killed herself by jumping off a bridge. Now functioning with an infant's mind after Godwin replaces her brain with that of her unborn baby's, he recruits med student Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) to track Bella's progress. But after falling in love with her and proposing marriage at Godwin's insistence, sleazy lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) arrives to finalize the contract.  

In the midst of exploring her own body and burgeoning sexual desires, Bella agrees to run off with Duncan, leaving Max behind, while Godwin moves on to another human project. But the mismatched couple's adventurous romp turns into a disaster when an increasingly curious Bella yearns to experience the world on her terms. As a whiny, insecure Duncan attempts to tighten the reigns and assert control over her, Bella must use the experience she's gained to decide between following this troublesome path or returning to the only life she knows. 

Based on Alasdair Gray's 1992 novel, this begins in classic horror territory, right down to an obsessively brilliant doctor's experiment and Robbie Ryan's stark black and white cinematography. Even before Godwin's pressured by Max for answers, it doesn't take long to figure out Bella is as much a test subject as the mutant animals found on the grounds. But it's Stone's mannerisms, physicality, line delivery and  distinct walk that reflects a child's mental and emotional inability to function within this adult woman's body. 

Lanthimos and Stone to make some bold choices that will immediately have viewers rooting Bella on, even in the cringiest of scenes. While Bella's decision to run away with Duncan is clearly a response to her character's sexual curiosity, it's the slimy suitor who seems more desperately in need of a brain and personality transplant, revealing himself a far bigger baby than Bella. But it's through his shenanigans that real change overtakes her, though not necessarily the kind Duncan wants. Stone may be remarkable but Ruffalo is perfect as her foil, bringing a quirky likeability to a drunken, debaucherous man child who's mentally unraveling at the mere thought of Bella openly questioning the rules of sophisticated society.

After a hugely entertaining dance number that serves as the first act's centerpiece, Bella and Duncan embark on a transformative cruise that Lanthimos fills with vibrant colors and jaw-dropping effects that resemble a dreamscape come to life. And there's a great interlude involving two passengers (played by Jerrod Carmichael and Hanna Schygulla) that further fuel Bella's philosophical curiosity and Duncan's eventual breakdown. 

When Bella winds up working in a brothel under the loony Madame Swiney (Kathryn Hunter), we already have ideas where this can go, at least until Tony McNamara's script subverts those expectations, using it as a thematic launching pad for Bella's final challenge. Going back to face the ailing father figure who deceived her and fiancé she abandoned, an even bigger obstacle awaits in reconciling the person she was with who she's now become.

By returning to the husband and life she had before leaping to her death, Bella attempts to flee from the men in her life, only to find herself back in a similar prison. General Alfie Blessington (Christopher Abbott) is just like the rest of them, but worse, leaving little wonder as to why "Victoria" felt there was no escape. With Bella now occupying the vessel that woman once resided, a new reality emerges when she takes matters into her own hands, utilizing the knowledge and experience she's gained to assert her independence. 

The victim of a medical procedure gone awry, or maybe exactly as planned, Bella navigates the world through different eyes, discovering it's just as cruel and unforgiving as when she first left it. Fully equipped with the tools to break those shackles, she gets the last laugh by shaping her own destiny. Brilliantly bizarre but hardly inaccessible, Lanthimos knows what he doing, endlessly imaginative in how he brings all these realistic sensibilities to a demented fairy tale. But everything comes down to Stone, who hits all the notes an actress possibly can in a single role, taking us on a wild, mind bending trip that isn't easy to shake.                                         

Burning Questions From The 2024 Oscars

 

 

Are we tired of Oscar hosts inserting themselves into clips of the Best Picture nominees?

Were you at least relieved it was just one?

Wasn't Jimmy Kimmel right that the show started already running behind?

Were you counting down the minutes until we got a joke about the length of this year's Best Picture nominees?

Or a De Niro age gap joke?

Or how about Robert Downey Jr.'s drug addiction?

Didn't RDJ less than thrilled?

Can you really blame him?

Was Messi the dog the best part of Kimmel's monologue? 

Or was it his shot at Katie Britt's State of the Union response?

Isn't it a great idea to finally have a Casting Oscar? 

When you saw the previous Supporting Actress winners come out on the stage were you thinking, "Oh no not this again?"

Were each of those introductions as long as an entire acceptance speech?

Did that just ruin any plans of the show not going over time?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to show a clip from each nominee?

Would that have felt like an even bigger waste of time if Da'Vine Joy Randolph somehow didn't win?

 

Was that David Allan Grier? 

 

Didn't you just know Myazaki wouldn't show up?

 

Do voters even care?

 

Wasn't it great that the orchestra played that instrumental version of P.I.M.P. when Anatomy of a Fall won Original Screenplay?

 

Can you imagine if The Holdovers actually won that in light of the recent plagiarism allegations?

 

Wasn't that a solid speech from Cord Jefferson?

 

Did Billie Eilish's "What Was I Made For?" performance make you more certain it would win Best Song?

 

Is Michael Keaton back to collect his stolen Oscar for Birdman?

 

Or stolen nomination for The Founder?

 

After wins for Makeup, Costume and Production Design, wasn't it clear Poor Things would be cleaning up?

 

Was Lily Gladstone starting to get worried? 

 

Is there anything John Cena won't do?

 

Between him, The Rock and Bad Bunny, has WWE fully taken over this show? 

 

Wasn't Blunt and Gosling's "Barbenheimer" bit pretty funny?

 

Shouldn't there be a Stunt Oscar already?

 

Did you remember that Tim Robbins won Best Supporting Actor for Mystic River?

 

Did he jump the gun a bit in calling De Niro's Flower Moon performance Oscar-winning?

 

Didn't it take longer than you expected for Oppenheimer's first two wins?

Is there any audience member better at playing along with these bits than Spielberg? 

 

Weren't you relieved they didn't start playing off 20 Days in Mariupol director Mstyslav Chernov during his acceptance speech?

 

Are we finally getting that Twins sequel? 

 

Wasn't that an awesome Batman bit with Schwarzenegger, DeVito and Keaton? 

 

Were the Godzilla Minus One winners holding more Oscars or Godzilla figures?

 

Wes Anderson wins his first Oscar but isn't there?

 

Were the Best Song performances getting shorter and shorter?

 

Is that really something to complain about? 

 

How about John Mulaney's Field of Dreams dissection?

 

Did that make you want to see the movie again right now?

 

Should he host this show next year?

 

For his sake, do you hope he turns it down?    

 

How wild was Gosling's "I'm Just Ken" performance?

Didn't we all just know it would be? 

 

For just a second there, did you consider John Williams could win his sixth Oscar at age 92?

Is Billie Eilish the only one who didn't see that win coming? 

 

Didn't the earlier start time really, really help this show?  

 

Did you almost forget they still have to get to the In Memorium segment?

 

Were you curious how they'd screw it up this year?

 

Didn't we lose a lot of big names? 

 

How surreal was it to see Paul Reubens and Matthew Perry were two of them? 

What was with that huge, unreadable block of names they just threw up there? 

And the nonsensical camera angles?

Are they ever going to get this thing right?

Lance Reddick?

Treat Williams?

 

Wasn't that a great group of former Best Actor winners they picked as presenters? 

 

Can we please get Nicolas Cage nominated for something again soon? 

 

Wasn't it a pretty safe bet Spielberg would present Best Director?

 

Was it an even safer one that Christopher Nolan would win?

 

Isn't it weird that Jessica Lange won her Best Actress Oscar for the otherwise completely forgettable Blue Sky?

 

How about the look of utter shock and disbelief on Stone's face when her name was read?  

Did everyone's prediction scores take a nosedive after that?

Was all the love for Poor Things in other categories a good indication this could happen for her?

 

Did you think that Trump tweet was just a joke at first?

 

Can anyone really be surprised it was real? 

 

Could Al Pacino have read the Best Picture winner any more casually?  

Shouldn't we just be grateful the correct winner was announced? 

Well, that whole show was relatively painless, wasn't it?

 

For all the criticism Kimmel gets, is there really anyone else that audience would be able to tolerate? 

Wasn't it nice to have this telecast end on the same date it began for a change? 

Cruella

Director: Craig Gillespie
Starring: Emma Stone, Emma Thompson, Joel Fry, Paul Walter Houser, Tipper Seifert-Cleveland, Emily Beecham, Kirby Howell-Baptiste, Mark Strong, John McCrea, Kayvan Novak, Jamie Demetriou
Running Time: 134 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's understandable that a certain amount of cynicism would accompany the release of Disney's Cruella, their latest attempt to repackage another one of their classic animated properties as a live-action adaptation. While they've traveled this road before with 101 Dalmations in 1996 and its sequel four years later, those predated the company's recent realization they could mine their entire catalog for a new generation unbothered by frequent complaints they're shamelessly cashing in on the past at the expense of creativity. Whether it's Cinderella (twice), Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or more recently, Mulan, results have been decidely mixed, most succeeding only in promoting a greater appreciation for the originals, which is probably still fine with Disney. 

Part fairy tale, Part supervillain origin story, part The Devil Wears Prada, director Craig Gillespie's take on Disney's most nororious dog hater doesn't deserve mention alongside those aforementioned reboot experiments mainly because there actually seems to be a definitive reason for its existence. It's worthwhile not only for adding something new to the mythos, but having more vision, style and purpose than most of what they've released in recent years. Taking place in kind of this heightened, hyper reality, it looks and feels tonally different from their usual fare, displaying far more ambition than anyone could have reasonably expected when the project was announced.

Comparisons could be made to 2019's Joker, until stopping to realize it still manages to be an entirely satisfying family movie that doesn't look out of place next to Disney's biggest hits. And that's a major accomplishment considering dalmations literally murder a woman in the opening minutes. It's crazy and audacious, but the key is in recalibrating this eventual villain as an anti-hero rising up against a system holding her down. Dana Fox and Tony McNamara's inventively tight script pushes back on the idea that Cruella de Vil is someone to root against or delusional in her beliefs. She's basically right about everything, and watching Emma Stone navigate that while battling an inescapable nastiness bubbling up inside is really something to behold. This, along with an inspired premise and frenetic pacing make its 134 minutes feel more like 30, demonstrating the potential benefits of repurposing classic characters to more strongly resonate with contemporary audiences. 

As a young child, Estella (Tipper Seifert-Cleveland) is a talented artist with an eye for fashion and a mean streak matched only by the white streak covering half her hair. After school fighting prompts mom Catherine (Emily Beecham) to remove her and relocate to London, she stops at a posh upper-class party to ask a mysterious woman for financial help. But when Estella's antics accidentally attract the attention of three ferocious dalmations, her mother is pushed off a balcony to her death. Orphaned and guilt-ridden, we flash forward to the height of the 70's fashion craze in London as a now young adult Estella (Stone) and pick-pocket friends Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Houser) get by with thievery before she lands a janitorial job at the Liberty department store. 

With Estella's dreams of a career in fashion design quickly fading with each toilet she cleans, a chance encounter with legendary, but ice cold haute couture design chief, the Baroness (Emma Thompson) leads to an apprenticeship at her prestigious firm. But as the talented nwecomer rises up the ranks as the Baroness' go-to underling, she makes a shocking discovery about her abusive boss' relationship to her birth mother, leading Estella to plot revenge and introduce the fashion world to her outrageously diabolical alter-ego, Cruella.    

None of this would be worth doing if not for the surprisingly fresh, modern take on Cruella, who's placed against a backdrop and colorful punk aesthetic perfectly suited to the material. But before the narrative even gets there, the prologue focusing on a young, troublemaking Estella provides an effective entry point, at times resembling a rock biopic more than your typical Disney outing. Of course, some cartoonish bells and whistles are still present, but Gillespie incorporates those in better than anyone else in his position has, keeping the focus where it belongs as we follow this little hellraiser on her journey. 

Seifort-Cleveland plays the misbehaving Estella with moxie and heart, immediately getting us on her side despite the character's bratty behavior, then eventually because of it when we realize what she's truly going through. It might be the most overlooked, underappreciated performance in how it sets the stage for what Stone will do later, with both working as mirrors for the other in ways you rarely see when two actors play the same character at different ages. 

It's a seamless transition when Stone's bespeckled, but determined Estella begins ingratiating herself into London's fashion scene and falls under the wing of Emma Thompson's Baroness. Given its context, Thompson's turn is just as effective as Meryl Streep's, whose Miranda Priestly had to at least partially serve as some kind of inspiration for this. She walks all over Estella until the power dynamic of their initially imbalanced relationship is considerably altered by a major development.

The ensuing feud that escalates when the two Emmas face off is where the movie really finds its voice. And it's a loud one, complete with numerous musical montages and music video-style cutting that goes way over-the-top, but intentionally so. Everyone from The Stones to The Doors to Blondie to Queen are all over the soundtrack, but the movie gets away with it since everything fits the action and setting of the story like a glove. That's only bolstered by Nicolas Karakatsanis' cinematography and some wild costume designs by Oscar winner Jenny Beaven that doesn't just compliment the proceedings, but plays as integral a part in the story as any single character, if not more so.

All these elements converge to make the character of Cruella seem more like a counter-culture badass and social disruptor than just a formidable challenger to the Baroness' fashion throne. Stone plays Cruella as Estella's lastest design, carefully cultivated to hurt and humiliate Baroness, but matched by her quieter Estella scenes as a mousy busybody trying to protect her cover. This leads to a Clark Kent-Superman dynamic hinging on whether the two can continue co-existing, a hook the film's able to retain right up until its final minutes. Keeping the childhood trauma in the front of our minds, Stone gives an already unfairly overlooked, award-caliber performance made all the more remarkable by the fact that she's pulling double duty the whole time. In playing a character playing a character, the actress is consistently add layers of complexity and nuance to what could have been a live-action caricature, all within the tight confines of a big budget family vehicle.

Speculation as what this would look like if it wasn't a Disney film, or maybe had an 'R' rating instead of its already unexpected 'PG-13,' seems inevitable. Could it have gone further if commercial concerns weren't such an issue and there wasn't a product or franchise to push? Maybe, but to some degree Gillespie deserves even more credit for not only creatively delivering with those guardrails in place, but using them to his advantage in crafting an original story freed from any noticeable concessions. In doing that, Cruella pulls off a tricky balancing act, boldly reconciling art and commerce in a style its title character would unquestionably appreciate. 

Battle of the Sexes

Directors: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Starring: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Alan Cumming, Elisabeth Shue, Austin Stowell, Natalie Morales, Eric Christian Olsen, Jessica McNamee, Fred Armisen, Chris Parnell, John C. McGinley
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

The best moment in Battle of the Sexes comes when Billie Jean King confronts Lawn Tennis Association head Jack Kramer about his plans to be in the commentary booth for her upcoming match against challenger and professional hustler Bobby Riggs. Having already been kicked off the tour for demanding women players receive equal prize money, she argues that while Riggs is entertaining the masses and raising his profile by playing an over-the-top character, the damage Kramer's inflicting with his sexist attitude is actually "real."

That meta observation isn't just true, but also conveys a certain self-awareness about the match and Riggs' place in it that the rest of the film often lacks. And that's the tough part about retroactively heaping such cultural significance on a sports event that largely revolved around laughs and entertainment. On one hand taking itself entirely seriously, while still trying to be a big joke at the same time, Battle of the Sexes is frequently a tale of two conflicting stories.

The stakes for Billie Jean were high and real as we're tirelessly reminded, but what Riggs was doing came closer to the tennis version of Andy Kaufman wrestling women. Far from a sexist pig, he was a performance artist and opportunist who happened to be really skilled at playing the role required of him. He was also a family man struggling with vices and addictions who in reality respected his top ranked female opponent. And not just as a player, but as a person. Unfortunately, the movie isn't about him. It's about King's fight for female equality, a notion the script underlines and highlights in the most heavy-handed way possible, spending nearly every scene drilling into our minds just how important it is. The problem is that no one involved knew that at the time, making the film's voice too often sound as if it's coming from 2017 instead of 1973.

Getting many important details right in its painstaking recreation of the era through costuming, production design and the casting of even the smallest roles, you want to scream in frustration that the script supporting it isn't better. This even looks like it was shot in the early seventies, containing believable tennis scenes and a lead actress who provides one of the worthier depictions of a professional player we've seen yet on screen, topped only by her better cast co-star. Of course, that's not saying much considering the sport's shoddy cinematic treatment in the past, but this was never going to be easy biographical material to adapt, as the end result shows.

It's 1972 when top-ranked women's tennis player Billie Jean King (Academy Award winner Emma Stone) and her brash manager Gladys Helman (Sarah Silverman) complain to Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman) that the women's tournament prize money is an eighth of the men's despite equal television ratings. Citing his belief that women players are physically inferior as a defense, he remains unwilling to budge on the terms, causing the women to form their own tour sponsored by Virginia Slims. Billie Jean's also going through some personal issues, coming to grips with her own homosexuality as she embarks on an an affair with hairdresser Marilyn Barnett (Andrea Riseborough) that's soon jeopardizing her marriage to husband, Larry King (Austin Stowell).

Meanwhile, 55-year-old retired champion Bobby Riggs (Academy Award nominee Steve Carell) is struggling to keep his marriage to wealthy wife Priscilla (Elisabeth Shue) afloat due to a gambling addiction when he suddenly gets an idea. He'll challenge the top women's player to a match, which is sure to net him tons of money and publicity, while also affirming male dominance in the sport. After initially declining, Billie Jean accepts when Riggs handily disposes of her biggest competition, the legendary Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee). Both Billie Jean and Bobby begin to train, with their upcoming three out of five set match at the Houston Astrodome taking on a level of pressure and anticipation neither anticipated. And most of that pressure is on King.

One of the big surprises to be found is in the humanity both actors bring to their roles, arguably making their real-life counterparts more complicated and nuanced than they probably were. For those unsure Stone would be up to the rigors of accurately depicting one of the greatest tennis players of all-time of any gender, she clearly got into the shape necessary for the part and looks and carries herself like a top athlete would. And whatever photographic tricks they may have used in the playing scenes worked since there's rarely an awkward moment when she has a racquet in her hand, which is kind of a shock.

It's almost beside the point how well Stone actually captures Billie Jean King the person, since this is about as close as it gets to an uncastable role. No one really looks like her, whoever they get will be accused of being too "pretty," and they'll have somehow work around the chosen actress' lack of experience in the sport. Emma certainly has all those things working against her, but somewhat overcomes them by zeroing in on King's determined spunk and spirit, which are qualities the actress never had problems conveying. In fact, if you had told me going in that Stone would be more believable as a top tennis player than a semi-closeted lesbian, there's no chance I'd believe it. But that's exactly how it comes across, no thanks to some writing that makes her and Riseborough's job considerably more difficult.

Simon Beoufoy's script paints Billie Jean's relationship with Marilyn in the broadest strokes possible, as most of their scenes together feature dialogue exchanges that are downright cringeworthy in their obviousness. While King's sexual preference was tennis' biggest open secret and undoubtedly needs inclusion in any accurate depiction of her life, Dayton and Faris seem to be going out of their way to prove they're not afraid to tackle it. We're reminded almost as frequently that she's living a "shameful" double life as we are that women are viewed as socially and genetically inferior to men. No one's doubting this all happened, but being "reminded" in this film most definitely means being told over and over again, rather than necessarily shown.

What the movie does handle well is Billie Jean's husband Larry's defeated but begrudgingly supportive reaction to all this, as he loyally stands by his wife as she carries on an affair with another woman, knowing that any public confirmation of it will crush her image and career. The sight of Larry, slinking down the hotel hallway back to his own room in what looks like a familiar walk of shame says it all. He's always known.        

Everything involving Bobby Riggs is fantastic, mainly due to Carell's deceptively complex comedic performance, which sees him cleverly sidestepping the easy temptation of playing him as a buffoonish clown. The former doubles champ was no dummy and saw the dollar signs in challenging King and what that eventual showdown would mean for him and the sport. As an entertainer, he just "gets it", knowing he had to further amplify his larger-than-life persona to make this character work, regardless of the controversy it would spark. He provided the necessary contrast to Billie Jean, who took herself so seriously that she'd be easy for him to rattle, and for fans to rally behind.  He was also the Pete Rose of tennis in how his gambling addiction nearly overshadowed anything he did on the court. Well, except this.

In one of the film's funniest scenes, Riggs enters a "Gambler's Anonymous" meeting, loudly announcing that their real problem isn't that they gamble, but that they're simply no good at it. Scenes like these are juxtaposed with quieter ones of real regret as he laments that he can't be a better husband. Carell's so good at conveying that none of Riggs' many promises are empty, just simply impossible for him to keep because of who he is. His eventually estranged wife, well played by Elisabeth Shue, does accept that while he'll never be a dependable spouse, he's still a good father to their young son, Bobby Jr. (scene-stealing Cooper Friedman) despite his obvious character flaws.

If Billie Jean's story too often unironically plays as a public service announcement for women's rights, Riggs' carries no such agenda or baggage, and feels more real as a result. A dead ringer for the role physically, Carell goes so far as to capture Bobby's tiniest and strangest idiosyncrasies, in many ways making for a better Bobby Riggs than the man himself.

The primary concern going into this was just how much creative license it would take to believably pull off the big match and have it not look completely ridiculous. For those cringing at the thought of these two actors having to at least minimally recreate a top level tennis match, there's some good news in that it's match from over thirty years ago from which there's plenty of archival footage to draw.

The slower pace, a retro-looking TV feed and what would now be considered archaic equipment help in making what we see on screen appear no better or worse than what likely occurred. At points, it even looks like they slide in clips from the actual match, which is pretty clever. A dripping wet Riggs' refusal to take off his "Sugar Daddy" sponsored warm-up jacket despite looking ready to collapse of heat exhaustion is almost too perfect a metaphor. Except for the fact that it really happened. He does eventually take it off, before losing a little later.

Whether or not Riggs actually "lost" is an issue I hoped the script would explore as rumors have persisted for years that he threw the match, which would be just like him and the ultimate joke on everyone holding this up as a watershed cultural moment. It would also be kind of sad on a number levels, chief among them that the top-ranked women's player really couldn't defeat a retired gambling addict in his mid-fifties. Rest assured the filmmakers wouldn't dare touch the possibility of a fix with a ten-foot pole, making their intentions for this to be an inspirational story abundantly clear throughout.

A powerful moment comes at the end of the picture when both King and Riggs are sitting alone in their respective locker rooms after the match. In a strange way, history has proven that they both won that night. For what seems like a minute straight we see an emotionally and physically exhausted Billie Jean as she just breaks down, sobbing and crying uncontrollably. Watching this, it occurred to me just how hard that is for an actress to believably pull off, becoming more convinced than ever that Stone's undeniably a great one. Whether she was the right choice for the part will likely be debated, but it's tough coming up with viable alternatives that would have brought more.

That aforementioned scene is real and raw, so much more effectively communicating what the movie was attempting to hammer into our heads with all the subtly of a sledgehammer. Of course, it's ruined shortly thereafter when a completely extraneous character played by Alan Cumming delivers a "this is the point of our movie" line that has to rank among the most embarrassing penned by an Oscar-winning screenwriter, if just on timing alone.

Movies that track the hard work and dedication that go into training for a sport, celebrate the spirit of competition, show an underdog overcoming the odds, or bask in the thrill of victory and agony of defeat, have become a rare breed. Think Rocky, Rudy, The Karate Kid, Breaking Away or even something like The Rookie or Miracle. While Battle of the Sexes was never going to be that kind of sports movie, it does make you question whether that genre still even exists, and why the bar wasn't set quite as high for this. We need to care about the person as a competitor before a message carrier in order for the social implications to carry weight. Instead, we find out what happens when everything that should be subtext becomes text, causing the professional athlete to be overshadowed by a reductive version of their own story.

Many Burning Questions from the 2017 Oscars

Wouldn't issues with the show's length be helped by starting even just a half hour earlier?

Boy, they're really getting the nominated songs out of the way early this year, aren't they?

Shouldn't we just be happy they're getting performed on the show at all?

Isn't JT's Trolls song annoyingly catchy?

Remember that year the telecast had more musical performances than the Grammys?

Did you totally expect a La La Land opening?

Even though the Globes did it already?

How long did it take Kimmel to make a political joke?

Wasn't his Great Wall dig at Matt Damon pretty funny?

Forget about Trump, wasn't Streep's ridiculous nomination the real elephant in the room?

Didn't the audience actually look like they were having a good time for a change during Kimmel's monologue?

How long did it take you to remember Alicia Vikander won the Supporting Actress Oscar last year?

With that speech, didn't for Mahershala Ali prove he deserved the night's first standing ovation?

Academy-Award winning Suicide Squad?

Did those winners for costume and makeup just drain a whole lot of Oscar pools?

Don't those categories screw everyone each year?

Did you catch Bill Paxton in that Rolex ad?

Were you still holding out hope that they'd get him into the In Memoriam montage?

Was 2016 O.J.'s year or what?

Is anyone bothered that it really isn't a documentary?

It's been brought up before, but shouldn't The Rock host the Oscars?

Isn't amazing that Lin-Manuel Miranda somehow squeezed into the Oscar race also?

And that he's one victory away from the EGOT?!

Aren't the Original Song nominees fairly strong this year?

Isn't it great we actually get to hear all of them?

What happened to that plan to spend less time between awards to speed things up?

When Kimmel talked about food, were you worried Ellen Degeneres would start delivering pizzas?

Um, so what's the difference between Sound Editing and Sound Mixing again?

Over an hour in and no Oscars for La La Land?

Wasn't it nice of Mel Gibson to bring his daughter to the ceremony?

Shouldn't there really be a casting Oscar already?

Aren't the classic clips of previous winners a great idea?

Who can possibly forget Mark Rylance beating Stallone last year?

Don't you wish you could?

How about that Michelle Williams scene?

Is Jeremy The Critic thrilled she keeps repping Dawson's Creek by bringing Busy Phillips with her every year?

Was Viola winning the certified lock of the night?

Did she scare you with all that talk about cemetaries and dead people?

Speaking of death, weren't you just dying to see a short film based on a Walmart receipt?

Who knew Charlize Theron was such a big fan of The Apartment?

Shouldn't they have more segments during the show with actors discussing their favorite movies?

Isn't that better than doing it... during the nominations announcement?!

Should we be happy or disappointed it took this long to get to an overtly political speech?

Didn't you know it would come during the Foreign Film category, no matter who won?

Could Sting's song be any shorter?

After Gael Garcia Bernnal, were you thinking it's now "game on" with the political stuff?

Were you thinking we could have an interesting night on our hands if La La Land doesn't win for Production Design?

When it did, were you thinking the landslide has started?

Wasn't that whole tour bus bit simultaneously disturbing and train wreck entertaining at the same time?

Didn't Kimmel's wisecracks save it?

These tourists sure like sticking phones in celebrities' faces, don't they?

If you're Meryl Streep, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, or Denzel Washington, are you secretly or (in Jennifer Aniston's case) not so secretly petrified?

How about that guy who fist bumped Mahershala Ali?

Is my night (and entire year) made seeing Michael J. Fox come out of a DeLorean to a standing ovation at the Academy Awards?

Not a question, but you guys better freakin' stand up!

Did you catch how ecstatic Brie Larson was?

Could life get any better for Seth Rogen right now?

Best Editing award isn't the Best Picture predictor it used to be, is it?

Did you catch them openly acknowledging no one's seen any of the nominated short films?

How about that mean tweet about Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne having "the same face?"

Or, my personal favorite, Casey Affleck being the real life version of Billy Bob Thornton's character from Sling Blade?

Were you glad Stone and Gosling got to present together since they've been so underexposed these past couple of months?

Even listening to just snippets of those musical scores, isn't La La Land's clearly the best?

Relieved when Jennifer Aniston mentioned Bill Paxton?

If you were told a year ago Carrie Fisher, Prince and Anton Yelchin would be in the In Memoriam montage, would you believe it?

Did Sara Bareilles give the best In Memoriam performance in years, or what?

Wasn't it the perfect match of song and artist? 

Was Kimmel fondly reminiscing about We Bought a Zoo the most hilarious gag of the night? 

Is Ben Affleck really in a position to join in mocking it?

Doesn't Kenneth Lonergan kind of resemble Grumpy Cat?

Wouldn't it kind of be a travesty if Moonlight didn't win that Adapted Screenplay Oscar?

Did you know that Damien Chazelle was set to be the youngest Best Director winner ever until the show ran too long?

Think I waiting all night to see my favorite Academy Award Winner, Brie Larson, take the Oscar stage again?

Even if she looked like she'd rather see any name on that card other than Casey Affleck's?

Did you see Ben struggle to keep it together after his brother's speech?

Did you remember Leo (finally) won the Oscar last year?

Just based on the clips, doesn't something seem horribly off with Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy?

Didn't Streep appear to be embarrassed by that clip?

Can you really blame her?

Doesn't it seem harder than ever for one movie to sweep, even with 14 nominations?

Aren't there too many Best Picture nominees?

Isn't it great to see Faye Dunaway and Warren Be.....

WAIT...WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED!!!!!???

Warren Beatty read the wrong winner?!!!

How is that even possible?!!

Didn't you just know something was wrong when you saw that guy with the headset scrambling on stage?

How could they give him the wrong envelope?!

Didn't La La Land producer Jordan Horowitz handle that entire situation better than anyone could be expected to?

Could he have possibly shown any more class in that moment?

Did that make more of a point than any political statement all night could have?

Jimmy Kimmel's speech at the show's start about being kind to each other doesn't seem so silly now, does it?

Aren't you glad someone took charge of that situation before it got even more awkward?

Wouldn't Moonlight winning Best Picture be shocking enough on its own?

Didn't Kimmel handle also handle that about as well as any host could?

Did you like Kimmel's shout-out to Steve Harvey?

Even after Warren explained it, did you still not understand how that could possibly occur?

Do two Best Picture speeches mean we won't finish on time?

Does this mean we can go back to liking the now suddenly underrated La La Land again?

So, does this mean we have to hate Moonlight now?

Did La La Land just score a victory that means more than a Best Picture Oscar?

Was this actually the best possible thing that could have happened to that movie?

Doesn't that and the growing resentment toward La La Land's many nominations prove how much of an albatross winning Best Picture can be?

How does it feel to witness history?

Aren't you glad you stayed up?

Was going to bed early the Oscar equivalent of turning off Game 6 of the 1986 World Series?

So wait, this means I got Best Picture wrong AGAIN?

Would I be satisfied if I kept missing categories under circumstances this thrilling?

Is Kimmel the only Oscars host of the past decade who's truly earned a permanent invite back?

Does this mean I now have to eat my words after initially complaining he was selected?

Do PricewaterhouseCoopers wish they could take that DeLorean back to about 10 minutes before the Best Picture envelope was opened?

How could THIS possibly be the lowest-rated Oscar telecast in 9 years?

Flubs aside, wasn't this actually a really well-produced show?

Wasn't this the Oscars we were all hoping we'd eventually get?

2017 Oscar Predictions

First, the good news. As is usually the case, the Academy did admirable job highlighting the best in motion pictures this year with their nominations, shining a spotlight on lesser known films that would otherwise go overlooked by the general public. Sure, you'll always have some casual viewers tuning in who haven't heard of most of the nominees but there's just no way around that. You have to reward quality and hope after Sunday's show more people come away interested in these movies and commit to seeing them since they're really great. I'd rather the telecast lead with that story rather than issues related to politics or the diversity of nominees. The former I'm just plain tired of while the latter already took center stage last year, and honestly, was never the Academy's problem to solve. It was the industry's. While I don't anticipate either of those topics taking the night off, I just hope it doesn't unnecessarily usurp the primary objective: Celebrating the movies and worthy work of the nominees. It should be their night, even if I'm cringing at the thought of what they'll possibly say when they get to the podium. 

As for the new host, I don't have strong feelings either way on Jimmy Kimmel, but can conclusively condemn the laziness of the selection, which just reeks of shameless corporate synergy. I expect that from the other awards telecasts but (perhaps naively) regarded the Academy Awards as being above that, or at least doing a good enough job pretending to be. Part of the fun each year was guessing who would be a worthy choice as host and now that's apparently out the window in favor of making sure ABC gets free advertising for their talk show. Combine that with the mishandling of the nominations announcement, and I'm less than optimistic about a telecast that could still surprise under the best of circumstances.

What won't be a surprise is the La La Land taking home the lion's share of these awards. Tying Titanic and All About Eve in total number of nominations with 14, it won't win them all, but it should win at least 9. That's enough to make the evening a certifiable sweep. There just isn't a single emerging challenger strong enough to give it trouble and my predictions below reflect that. The best case scenario is that they at least spread the wealth a little bit to keep it interesting and the telecast stays under 5 hours. Unlike last year, when I had a horse in the race with Room, I can't say I'm as personally invested in Sunday's outcomes. If anything, that may be a plus and bode well for my predictions, sparing me an embarrassment like missing Best Picture. All my picks are below, along with some comments on the major categories. And as usual, I'll reserve the right to make adjustments right up until the show starts.

*Predicted Winners

Best Animated Feature
Kubo and the Two Strings, Travis Knight and Arianne Sutner
Moana, John Musker, Ron Clements and Osnat Shurer
My Life as a Zucchini, Claude Barras and Max Karli
The Red Turtle, Michael Dudok de Wit and Toshio Suzuki
Zootopia, Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Clark Spencer

Best Animated Short
Blind Vaysha, Theodore Ushev
Borrowed Time, Andrew Coats and Lou Hamou-Lhadj
Pear Cider and Cigarettes, Robert Valley and Cara Speller
Pearl, Patrick Osborne
Piper, Alan Barillaro and Marc Sondheimer

Best Documentary Feature
13th, Ava DuVernay, Spencer Averick and Howard Barish
Fire at Sea, Gianfranco Rosi and Donatella Palermo
I Am Not Your Negro, Raoul Peck, Remi Grellety and Hebert Peck
Life, Animated, Roger Ross Williams and Julie Goldman
O.J.: Made in America, Ezra Edelman and Caroline Waterlow

Best Documentary Short Subject
4.1 Miles, Daphne Matziaraki
Extremis, Dan Krauss
Joe’s Violin, Kahane Cooperman and Raphaela Neihausen
Watani: My Homeland, Marcel Mettelsiefen and Stephen Ellis
The White Helmets, Orlando von Einsiedel and Joanna Natasegara

Best Live Action Short Film
Ennemis Interieurs, Selim Azzazi
La Femme et le TGV, Timo von Gunten and Giacun Caduff
Silent Nights, Aske Bang and Kim Magnusson
Sing, Kristof Deak and Anna Udvardy
Timecode, Juanjo Gimenez

Best Foreign Language Film
A Man Called Ove, Sweden
Land of Mine, Denmark
Tanna, Australia
The Salesman, Iran
Toni Erdmann, Germany

Best Film Editing
Arrival, Joe Walker
Hacksaw Ridge, John Gilbert
Hell or High Water, Jake Roberts
La La Land, Tom Cross
Moonlight, Nat Sanders and Joi McMillon

Best Sound Editing
Arrival, Sylvain Bellemare
Deep Water Horizon, Wylie Stateman and Renee Tondelli
Hacksaw Ridge, Robert Mackenzie and Andy Wright
La La Land, Ai-Ling Lee and Mildred Iatrou Morgan
Sully, Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman

Best Sound Mixing
Arrival, Bernard Gariepy Strobl and Claude La Haye
Hacksaw Ridge, Kevin O’Connell, Andy Wright, Robert Mackenzie and Peter Grace
La La Land, Andy Nelson, Ai-Ling Lee and Steve A. Morrow
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, David Parker, Christopher Scarabosio and Stuart Wilson
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Mac Ruth

Best Production Design
Arrival, Patrice Vermette, Paul Hotte
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Stuart Craig, Anna Pinnock
Hail, Caesar!, Jess Gonchor, Nancy Haigh
La La Land, David Wasco, Sandy Reynolds-Wasco
Passengers, Guy Hendrix Dyas, Gene Serdena

Best Original Score
Jackie, Mica Levi
La La Land, Justin Hurwitz
Lion, Dustin O’Halloran and Hauschka
Moonlight, Nicholas Britell
Passengers, Thomas Newman

Best Original Song
“Audition (The Fools Who Dream),” La La Land — Music by Justin Hurwitz; Lyric by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul
“Can’t Stop the Feeling,” Trolls — Music and Lyric by Justin Timberlake, Max Martin and Karl Johan Schuster
“City of Stars,” La La Land — Music by Justin Hurwitz; Lyric by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul
“The Empty Chair,” Jim: The James Foley Story — Music and Lyric by J. Ralph and Sting
“How Far I’ll Go,” Moana — Music and Lyric by Lin-Manuel Miranda

Best Makeup and Hair
A Man Called Ove, Eva von Bahr and Love Larson
Star Trek Beyond, Joel Harlow and Richard Alonzo
Suicide Squad, Alessandro Bertolazzi, Giorgio Gregorini and Christopher Nelson

Best Costume Design
Allied, Joanna Johnston
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Colleen Atwood
Florence Foster Jenkins, Consolata Boyle
Jackie, Madeline Fontaine
La La Land, Mary Zophres

Best Visual Effects
Deepwater Horizon, Craig Hammack, Jason Snell, Jason Billington and Burt Dalton
Doctor Strange, Stephane Ceretti, Richard Bluff, Vincent Cirelli and Paul Corbould
The Jungle Book, Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones and Dan Lemmon
Kubo and the Two Strings, Steve Emerson, Oliver Jones, Brian McLean and Brad Schiff
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, John Knoll, Mohen Leo, Hal Hickel and Neil Corbould

Best Cinematography
Bradford Young, Arrival
Linus Sandgren, La La Land
Greig Fraser, Lion
James Laxton, Moonlight
Rodrigo Prieto, Silence

Best Adapted Screenplay
Arrival, Eric Heisserer
Fences, August Wilson
Hidden Figures, Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi
Lion, Luke Davies
Moonlight, Barry Jenkins

*This is Moonlight's to lose and it isn't out of the realm of possibility that it does. A really strong category where really anything (yes, even Arrival) could sweep in and take it. Fences, Hidden Figures and Lion are all based on highly respected source material many could claim were improved upon or at least equaled by their cinematic adaptations. As tempted as they'll be to give a posthumous Oscar to August Wilson for Fences, more tempting will be rewarding Moonlight in a major category besides Supporting Actor since it's likely to lose both Picture and Director. While Barry Jenkins' script feels the least "adapted " of the five (controversially placed here due to it being based on an unproduced play) and Lion is really on an upswing, that shouldn't be enough to slow its momentum. Plus, everyone wants to see Jenkins make it to the podium at least once. Barry, that is. Not Florence Foster. 

Best Original Screenplay
20th Century Women, Mike Mills
Hell or High Water, Taylor Sheridan
La La Land, Damien Chazelle
The Lobster, Yorgos Lanthimos, Efthimis Filippou
Manchester by the Sea, Kenneth Lonergan

*Another loaded category where they'll again want to go with a highly respected film not likely to win many other awards due to La La Land's expected dominance. Lonergan's Manchester by the Sea is the most writerly of these, with its observant script tying the gut-wrenching performances as its strongest aspect. For Hell or High Water and especially The Lobster, their nominations are reward enough. Same for Mike Mills' 20th Century Women. The only remaining threat is La La Land and believe me it's a major one. If Chazelle takes this, watch out, since his screenplay is widely regarded as the film's weakest link. But when you're talking about a story that directly speaks to most of the Academy's voting body and their own perceived life experiences, anything's possible. It's a movie that's quite literally hitting them where they live. I'm still picking Manchester, but using a pencil.       

Best Supporting Actress
Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

*Viola Davis has this in the bag in a race that may be the closest thing we have to a sure bet all night. Of course, that category is still Supporting Actress, which is historically known for major, shocking upsets. I don't foresee that this year, with Davis' biggest challenge coming in the form of Michelle Williams, whose devastating few minutes in Manchester by the Sea is exactly the kind of cameo-like performance the Academy can sometimes like to reward. Just not this year. Naomie Harris feels next in line, followed by Davis' The Help co-star Octavia Spencer and, in distant last, Nicole Kidman. There's still this feeling Viola is owed an Oscar after losing to Streep a few years ago, so the fact that she's deserving and basically carries the film in a role she already won a Tony for on Broadway, is just icing on the cake. The potential roadblock would be category fraud, as many see it as a lead rather than supporting performance. But it won't matter.    

Best Supporting Actor
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel, Lion
Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals

*Imagine the possibility of Dev Patel's name being announced as the winner. With the steam Lion's been gaining, it could easily happen. But it won't. I'm writing off Mahershala Ali's Golden Globe loss to Nocturnal Animals' Aaron Taylor-Johnson as a complete fluke because he's winning this. He's likable, respected, humble and gave the performance of his life (and one of the best of the year) in Moonlight. His biggest threat is Patel, an actor few thought would ever see an Oscar ceremony again after starring in and seemingly peaking with Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire nearly nine years ago. Jeff Bridges' Texas Ranger in Hell or High Water is supposedly too reminiscent of other recent curmudgeonly roles he's had, there's a feeling Lucas Hedges still "has time," and as much as everyone loves Michael Shannon, this doesn't feel like his Oscar-winning part. We'll definitely know when it gets here. Expect the speech of the night from Ali.  

Best Actress
Isabelle Huppert, Elle
Ruth Negga, Loving
Natalie Portman, Jackie
Emma Stone, La La Land
Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins

*As much as prognosticators have tried to hype this up as a tight race, it isn't. At least not anymore. It's all about Emma and at this point there's absolutely nothing standing between her and a statue that's coming a lot sooner in her career than many expected. Even those who don't care for La La Land (yes, there are some) have a hard time denying that she's undoubtedly the best thing in it. But it's definitely a different kind of Best Actress victory than Brie Larson's last year for Room, which was probably my favorite Oscar-winning performance of the past decade. It doesn't reach those raw depths, nor it is meant to, instead falling more on the entertainment side of the fence. So while comparisons will exist because of their ages and similar career trajectories up to this point, this strangely feels like a "one for us, one for them" type of win for Stone that's a return to how we perceive the Academy thinks after backing Larson last year.

Streep's annual token nomination is turning into such a bad joke I could actually see this harming her legacy if it continues. "It's a thrill just to be nominated" may actually be real statements uttered by Isabelle Huppert and Ruth Negga. The former has a much better chance based on a career of outstanding work and it was nice to see the latter sneak in, as her nomination for Loving was far from a sure thing. In fact, at one point it was a real long shot so it's great her career gets the bump. Speaking of bumps, that leaves us with Stone's biggest concern: Portman.

As a film, the character-driven Jackie just was just never received as a top tier player going into Awards season against the likes of heavier hitters like La La Land and Moonlight. She needed it to be to get the win. Combine that with having already won for Black Swan, her pregnancy preventing her from doing much promotion and the fact that Stone is untouchable right now, and it becomes an even steeper climb. Her only hope is that they make a political vote based on the subject matter, but if that were the case her film would have been nominated for more, including Best Picture. Mostly middle to older aged white males still comprise much of the Academy and we know how they love to vote for the hot, young ingenue. That only tips the scales further in Stone's favor.        

Best Actor
Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield, Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling, La La Land
Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic
Denzel Washington, Fences

*The tightest contest of the night. while I wouldn't go as far as saying it could tilt either way, Denzel and Affleck are pretty close right now. Still, I'm favoring Affleck, if only because I can't imagine voters seeing that police station scene and not giving it to him based on that alone. And despite their fondness for actors who direct, Washington isn't exactly widely loved within the industry and hasn't stacked up the impressive number of notices and awards Affleck and Manchester has over the past few months. If Andrew Garfield wins, Adrien Brody will be somewhere cheering.

Mortensen really stands out as the most adventurous nomination here, but a very unlikely winner considering how Captain Fantastic was ignored in all other categories. Gosling's performance is La La Land is underappreciated and taken for granted, if only because his co-star's so good. But the best work he did over the past year was in The Nice Guys. The safe money's on Casey, but i wouldn't be completely shocked by a Denzel upset.  

Best Director
Damien Chazelle, La La Land
Mel Gibson, Hacksaw Ridge,
Barry Jenkins, Moonlight
Kenneth Lonergan, Manchester by the Sea
Denis Villeneuve, Arrival

*I still contend Damien Chazelle should have won Best Director for Whiplash a couple of years ago (when he went criminally un-nominated) so I'm completely fine with the foregone conclusion that he's getting this. La La Land is a far cry from that film, but he's deserving nonetheless, as his direction is the main reason a concept that had no business working at all ends up working magnificently. To pull that off is an achievement in itself, speaking to his talent and proving he's more than worthy of the statue, which could be seen as an investment in his bright future. Jenkins and Lonergan are his strongest competitors with the former having a legitimate chance if the voters don't feel like granting La La Land the sweep that's expected. Historically, Picture and Director rarely split, but it's been happening more in recent years (including last) so anything's possible. Arrival's Villeneuve feels like the odd man out here, while just seeing a nominated Mel Gibson at the Oscars and speculating on the reception he'll get, is reward enough for viewers and movie fans everywhere. He doesn't need the win and won't get it. Chazelle has this in the bag. 

Best Picture
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight

*Since we already know La La Land is winning, let's try speculating on potential alternate scenarios, most of which seem illogical or ridiculous. That's how you know this is over. But it's here where we can start to factor in the cultural and political climate of the past year into the Oscar race. Perhaps sensing the frontrunner is too slight a choice, not diverse or "important" enough to represent 2016 as its Best Picture, voters look elsewhere. The most viable alternative would be Moonlight, a selection that would squash most criticisms leveled at the Academy through the years, such as their alleged slights against minorities and that Brokeback Mountain debacle from over a decade ago. Those aren't good reasons to reward a film with the industry's top prize but it's unfortunately the only scenario I foresee where they would. To rehab their image. What's unfortunate about their mindset is that the film is deserving on its own merits, even if history has proven something like this is just too challenging for them to endorse. They'll think the nomination is enough.

Lion fits more squarely in their wheelhouse and if there's an upset it would be a rousing, inspiring internationally flavored adaptation like this that spoils the party. But as much momentum as it's picked up, it's just not enough, peaking maybe just a little too late. There's some truth in that "Hidden Fences" joke since in voters' minds the two films will probably be interchangeable on their ballots, splitting votes and cancelling each other out. Manchester By the Sea has held strong but it's a depressing wrist-slitter, and no matter how well written and acted, the Academy rarely rewards those with Best Picture.

Hell or High Water, Arrival and the more respected Hacksaw Ridge are considered genre pictures that are well liked, but may not have gotten in without an expanded field. Even by process of elimination it would still be La La Land, if it didn't already have enough going for it. Universally beloved, unmatched technical prowess, gigantic scope, the comeback of the musical, well-liked actors, and a theme, story, and setting that's instantly relatable to the entire Academy, it can't possibly lose. It's their movie and they'll be tripping all over themselves to reward it. But you already knew that.        

La La Land

Director: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Legend, Rosemarie DeWitt, J.K. Simmons, Tom Everett Scott, Josh Pence
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There will be those with whom La La Land will strongly connect right out of the gate. It'll be love at first sight for anyone bemoaning the fact they don't make musicals anymore, much less old school Hollywood musicals. For them, the very idea that one could be successfully made today and it not be based on previously produced material from the stage or screen once seems impossible. As does the notion that said musical, released in the year 2016, could not only do exceptionally well critically and commercially, but go on to earn a record-tying fourteen Oscar nominations.  For them, the film's opening sequence, and best musical number, as drivers exit their cars during a traffic jam on a Los Angeles freeway and spontaneously burst into brilliantly choreographed song and dance, will literally be a dream come true. Going in knowing what I did about the film and my tastes, I knew I wouldn't be one of those people. Hardly predisposed to nostalgic movie memories for the genre itself, this would have to reach me some other way. And it would have to really work for it. It can be tough approaching a film this late in the conversation, especially when that discussion revolves around it be being hands-down the best of the year and frontrunner for Best Picture. You can't ignore that. It's there. And it's also baggage.

What hasn't been discussed much about the film is just how few musical numbers there are, or maybe just how carefully they've been placed into the narrative by writer/director Damien Chazelle, mostly in its first half. This is appropriate since La La Land is very much a tale of two movies. One seems tailor made for that aforementioned audience clamoring for the genre's comeback, while the second is a relationship drama about lost love, broken dreams and rejection sure to strike a chord with more skeptical, cynical filmgoers like myself. This was the only movie from the past year I was actually apprehensive to see out of concern it could be a disaster. Under normal circumstances that would be fine. But not from the director of Whiplash and starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. Thankfully, it's easy to see why everyone's going crazy over it. There are about fifteen things, big and small, you could list that are great about the film, and out of those, the natural, easygoing chemistry between its stars has to rank near the top.

We knew when they first shared the screen in 2011's Crazy, Stupid, Love that what Stone and Gosling have and how they play off each other can't just simply be replicated by another random actor pairing. And now two careers whose have been steadily and consistently rising are given the opportunity to show the uninitiated what they're capable of on the biggest stage possible  And still, the whole thing had me worried as it's a bit of a tightrope walk throughout. Even after seeing it, this one had to really sit a while since it does leave you with something. While that "something" isn't ideas, certain scenes and sequences still linger long afterward, indicating this isn't as fluffy as some of its detractors have accused. There's a lot to appreciate here, even if different audiences may find it in entirely different places.

It's winter in Los Angeles and after a brief, but unpleasant highway encounter with struggling Jazz pianist Sebastian (Gosling), Warner Bros studio lot barista and aspiring actress Mia (Stone) is off to another eventually unsuccessful audition. When an attempt by her roommates to brighten her mood by hitting up a Hollywood Hills party ends without her car, she finds herself at a restaurant involved in another chance meeting with Seb, just fired from his gig by owner Bill (J.K. Simmons) for slipping into jazz improvisation during his mandated set. This time, he's even more of a jerk to her. It isn't until a couple of months later that they really connect at a party and soon start to fall head over heels for each other after a few memorable dates at the movies, a jazz club, the studio lot and the Griffith Observatory.

As rapidly as Mia and Seb's relationship is progressing, both their career aspirations have cripplingly stalled, with the painful rejections of the auditioning process proving too much for Mia as she starts working on her single-actress stage play, wondering if she's even cut out for this business at all. Seb's unable to hold down a steady gig, causing him to shelve his dream of opening a jazz club in favor of joining the band of his old friend, Keith (John Legend) as their keyboardist.  But when something starts happening for one of them, their relationship is given a serious test, as they must decide whether fulfilling their dreams in a town known for routinely shattering them is worth the sacrifice of each other.  

That these are two clearly written and defined characters is important to get out of the way first because if they weren't none of the riskier elements would fall into to place like they do. And while there are times they fall into place perfectly, there are also occasional instances when they don't. There were definitely points where a musical number seemed to stretch on a bit too long or a dialogue exchange dragged, but it's tough to tell how much of that can be attributed to it just going with the territory when you make this type of  film, which undoubtedly plays by a different set of rules than usual. That all of this is okay is a credit to how well Chazelle confidently announces from the beginning what we're getting, and while it veers from that formula a bit in the second half, it's still fair to say he never strays too far.

You're either on board or you're not and chances are you'll know within a matter of minutes. It's apparent the movie means business when we see that classic Cinemascope logo pop up on the screen and, following that sensational pre-credits number, a giant 1950's-style title card. While the inventively choreographed "Another Day of Sun" is by far the sunniest, peppiest number in the film, all the ones that follow really strong as well, with the more melancholy and likely Oscar-winning "City of Stars" and Audition ("The Fools Who Dream") being standouts.

Stone and Gosling aren't singers but neither are their characters so the fact that they're not world class crooners or even dancers actually lends an added air of credibility to the proceedings. And it should be noted that such a criticism couldn't even extend to the former, who really acquits herself well in both departments. This is a musical, but as strange as it sounds, that's not what either were hired for. Before anything, they're completely believable as a couple, and for all the attention the songs and musical sequences have gotten, the biggest relief for me is the emphasis on the non-musical scenes and story.

The best moments involve Mia and Seb just talking and getting to know each other against the backdrop of an admittedly heightened and idealized L.A, presented in all its vivid, colorful, widescreen glory by cinematographer Linus Sandgren, foregoing digital to shoot on film and emulate the look and feel of the classic musicals that obviously inspired this one. He's succeeded, as no recently released picture looks quite as inviting as this, and in a really different way that immediately sets it apart. While it's easy to roll your eyes these days at anyone claiming you "have to" see a certain film on the big screen, this actually meets the qualification. Similar praise can be reserved for the costume and production design, which, despite being a throwback, has kind of this timeless quality that's unusual for a film set in present day, with Justin Hurwitz's musical score perfectly and subtly underlining that.

If Gosling's contributions have gone somewhat overlooked in the quieter, more understated role that's only because Emma Stone leaves such an indelible mark. He's nearly as good as the struggling pianist, but it hardly matters since neither performance could fully exist without the other and if you recast just one of them, we wouldn't be having the same conversation about the film we are now.  Despite her rapid ascent and charismatic screen presence over the past five to ten years, Emma isn't necessarily an actress who can be plugged into any part in any project, but she can do this. And does she ever nail it. Mia is pretty much the dream role for her, taking full advantage of the sense of humor, elegance, goofiness and vulnerability she's been bringing to the table since we first saw her a decade ago.

Beaten down by constant rejection, Stone's best scene is an emotional audition where Mia's delivering brilliant, a heart wrenching monologue that's curtly interrupted by a casting agent's utter apathy. The look on her face says everything. No one cares. And she'll mostly be in this alone so it's time to toughen up or get out. It's probably the most realistic moment in a film that consistently and effectively operates on a level of hyper-realism for most of its running time. This also sets the table for what comes later, when the relationship hits a roadblock that doesn't feel manufactured and we're treated to an inspired final fifteen minutes that then proves it isn't, deviating just enough from conventional expectations.

While it's been a bit overstated just how much of a turn the last third takes, this won't be considered a tragedy anytime soon, as both characters aren't exactly suffering. And yet, Chazelle has us so entrenched in this world of theirs, we believe that in some bittersweet way they are. That it's well executed and has something to say about the messiness of life and the pain of missed opportunities only bolsters the overall viewing experience. Having already given us one of the deepest, most thought provoking endings in years with Whiplash, it was brave of Chazelle to even attempt surprising us a second time. Then again, this whole thing is kind of brave when you think about it. There are so many different ways La La Land could have all gone wrong, and that it doesn't, might be more of a feat than all the awards it's received. It's always great seeing something new, but what can be even greater is seeing something old in an entirely fresh light, making it feel new again.