Air

Director: Ben Affleck
Starring: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman, Marlon Wayans, Chris Messina, Chris Tucker, Viola Davis, Matthew Maher, Julius Tennon, Damian Young, Jay Mohr
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

After a montage of 80's milestones set to Dire Strait's "Money For Nothing," Ben Affleck's Air kicks off by taking us straight into Nike headquarters, where something huge is about to go down, even if no one knows it yet. Based on a true story, it's about one man's gut feeling based on extensive knowledge and experience. Having already rolled the dice on a number of bad ideas and some really good ones he didn't get credit for, key employee Sonny Vaccaro has a new one he thinks can turn the fledgling company's fortunes around. And it just might be crazy enough to work.

This details how a Nike basketball scout signed college standout Michael Jordan to the sponsorship deal that transformed sports as we know it, to this day still generating a seemingly endless revenue stream. Unlike others, Vaccaro knew what bringing Jordan aboard would mean and was willing to do anything to get him. In retrospect, it's almost impossible to envision another outcome, but the film transports us into a world where it's not such a sure bet, as Alex Convery's script reveals everything that needed to fall exactly into place.

So accessibly mainstream that even those uninterested in basketball or sports in general will be hooked, it's easily the best in its genre since Moneyball, if slightly lighter in tone, but representing the type of adult-driven Hollywood picture that doesn't get made nearly enough. It also marks the long anticipated onscreen reunion of Affleck and Matt Damon, which doesn't disappoint, as both bring their best to this deceptively accomplished audience pleaser.

It's 1984 and Oregon-based Nike is on the verge of shutting down their unprofitable basketball shoe division as CEO and co-founder Bob Knight (Affleck) tasks Marketing VP Rob Strasser (Jason Bateman) and Sonny (Damon) with picking recently drafted NBA players to sign. Lagging far behind Adidas and Converse in sales, they're still primarily known for running shoes, leaving this division hurting for resources and attention. 

With North Carolina's Michael Jordan out of their price range and already planning to sign a lucrative Adidas contract, they go down the list of more attainable draft picks like Melvin Turpin and John Stockton. But Sonny can't let it go, pushing Knight to spend the department's entire budget on acquiring an uninterested, unaffordable Jordan and build their entire brand around him.  

While Jordan's understandably protective mother Deloris (Viola Davis) drives a hard bargain, Sonny will have to first find a way around his fast-talking, abrasive agent David Falk (Chris Messina), who makes the player's feelings about Nike abundantly clear. After gauging interest from Jordan's friend and Olympic coach George Raveling (Marlon Wayans) and consulting with upper level executive Howard White (Chris Tucker), Sonny remains undeterred. He's willing to risk it all, even if Nike's entire basketball division goes down with him.     

Sonny's tenacity causes headaches, but he's the real deal when it comes to knowing the game, as we see him continuously rewatch the most famous highlight in Jordan's NCAA career, but through an entirely different lens than everyone else. While Knight got Sonny this job and clearly respects the hustle, he still has a board to answer to, so the latter has to make things happen on his own. If shaking up the status quo and challenging the entire system is what it takes then that's what he'll do. 

Standing out as a likable straight shooter in a sports business full of used car salesmen, it's easy to see why Michael's dad, James (Julius Tennon) immediately takes to him and even the far more skeptical, business-minded Deloris respects his straightforwardness. Sonny's face-to-face with her at the Jordan home is one of the film's best scenes, as he cleverly exposes the competing companies' weaknesses before Deloris eventually finds out just how right he is. It's probably the closest this comes to being any kind of cynical capitalistic critique, which is fine since such an approach would seem wildly inconsistent with what Affleck's trying to accomplish.

If the first few minutes weren't clue enough, the 80's nostalgia rarely lets up, from the clothes to office decor and barrage of period specific needle drops on the soundtrack. There's even a washed-out, VHS look to Robert Richardson's cinematography. But Affleck gets away with it since there's something unabashedly sincere about his intentions, aside from also benefiting from a story that's never been explored to this extent in a dramatic feature.

Damon plays Sonny as disheveled and defeated, until inspiration strikes and he hits the ground running. He knows Jordan is a generational talent who needs to stand out rather than be the third wheel with Magic and Bird at Converse. He has to be the whole brand and treated as such for this to work and many of Damon's strongest moments involve him trying to sell his bosses on exactly that.

Affleck's performance as Knight is something else, almost as if every sad sack internet meme of the actor looking stressed, conflicted and frustrated was suddenly transposed to the screen. Not knowing much about the real Knight beyond him being an eccentric guy, it's hard to tell how much of the portrayal was intended to be comical, but it's a hoot anyway. 

A mullet-haired Jason Bateman steals the movie out from under everyone, as his perpetually irritated Rob Strasser grounds the insanity, reining in some of Sonny's less desirable instincts. He initially comes off as a slick, sarcastic company yes man before Bateman gradually peels back the layers to remind Sonny that while taking risks can pay off, the negative consequences of bigger, less calculated ones don't just fall on him. 

Everything comes to a head in their pitch to the Jordans when Nike sneaker designer Peter Moore's (Matthew Maher) "Air Jordan" masterpiece is revealed. Credited as being played by actor Damian Young, there's a deliberate attempt not to show Michael, other than briefly from the side or behind. Stepping into this iconic role would be daunting for anyone, but you have to wonder whether this decision unintentionally causes the distraction Affleck was looking to avoid. But since the picture isn't technically "about" Jordan he gets a pass and you just roll with it.

Supposedly, Jordan himself suggested Viola Davis play his mom and was that ever the right call. Falk might be his agent, but it's clear from the get-go who really is. Tough but fair, she doesn't suffer fools, remaining acutely aware of her son's worth. What she asks for is unprecedented, but not unreasonable, at least knowing what we do now. The final meeting is full of ups and downs until Sonny digs deep to deliver an unforgettably emotional speech that both predicts and understands Jordan's place in the cultural landscape.      

Lifted by its tremendous cast, you could imagine a few of Air's performances being remembered come awards time, regardless of when or where this was released. It's a rousing, well-made sports drama about recognizing someone's value and fighting for it, especially when no one wants to listen. You could argue all day about how Nike's deal permanently moved the industry goalposts, but there's no questioning the undisputed impact of the player who got it.    

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom

Director: George C. Wolfe
Starring: Viola Davis, Chadwick Boseman, Glynn Turman, Colman Domingo, Michael Potts, Jonny Coyne, Taylour Paige, Jeremy Shamos, Dusan Brown
Running Time: 94 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Based upon August Wilson's acclaimed 1982 play, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is an entertaining, eye-opening spectacle that examines the plight of two strong-willed African American musicians fighting for what's owed to them in a business and society holding them down. They're both essentially battling for the same cause, even as the personal histories that have shaped their present serve as further roadblocks, preventing them from forming the most basically cordial working relationships, especially with each other. Operating under the thumb of white record producers looking to get rich off their talents, anyone familar with the power imbalance at work here could imagine another film told entirely from the vantage point of these executives. 

Much of that hypothetical picture would focus on how these bosses are doing the black musicians a favor while getting nothing but aggravation in return."Difficult" would undoubtedly be a frequent descriptor used by these men to describe how their contracted property won't bend to their will, even as the title character gladly wears that as a badge of honor. But such a film is entirely unnecessary since director George C. Wolfe seems to have already made it. Considering who was calling the shots, these musicians were always going to be relegated to supporting players in their own careers, without being granted the dignity of such an explanation.   

Unsurprisingly, Chadwick Boseman's performance would be receiving this level of praise regardless of whether it marked the final time we saw him on screen. His character proves to be the driving engine as he takes this cocky, smooth talking, hotheaded upstart musician on a tumultuous journey instigated by a pain and anguish we've only begun to partially comprehend, until it engulfs every frame, swallowing everyone and everything around it. His self-justification grows deeper and darker, threatening to explode at any moment, until it actually does.The film peaks at just the right time before making an early exit but it's the two Oscar-nominated turns that carry the picture. Thinking we know where all this is going until it's actually there, the finale is challenging to watch, all but confirming that the more things change, the more they haven't changed at all.         

It's 1927 and popular blues singer Ma Rainey (Viola Davis) is under contract to Paramount when manager Irvin (Jeremy Shamos) schedules her for a recording session in Chicago with her Georgia Jazz Band members, Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo), Slow Drag (Michael Potts) and overconfident trumpeter Levee Green (Boseman). Hoping to break away from the band and land his own deal, Levee shows his original compositions to producer Mel Sturdyvant (Jonny Coyne), to nearly everyone's disapproval. Ma is especially angered by his ambitions, believing a proven track record of success has afforded her the final say over him, the rest of the band and producers. 

Showing up late with girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and 14 year-old nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown), Ma demands the latter speak the album's opening narration despite his serious stutter, determined to have everyone wait until he gets it right. This instigates a battle of wills between her and the producers, as well as with Levee, who's not only underming Ma's authority with his own musical arrangments, but also seems to have designs on Dussie Mae. As tensions between Levee and the other band members threaten to boil over, disturbing revelations about his childhood come to light, sending his quick temper careening out of control.

Ma's strong stage presence, powerful voice and overwhelming personality may make it seem on the surface as if she's enormously successful enough to do what she wants, when in actuality this is the 1920's and white male label heads view her strictly as a monetary investment. She only seems to be in charge because everything's a fight to prevent them from walking all over her, at points even explicitly stating these men wouldn't pay her any mind if not for the singing that makes them money. And she's right.

Whether it's her bosses withholding money or trying to creatively call the shots, Ma has adopted this attitude as a survival mechanism, well aware that the career consequences could be far worse if she didn't fight for her fair share. For Davis, this role's a homecoming of sorts, having aleady won an Oscar and Tony for her role in Wilson's Fences, but this is an entirely different, brasher, more over-the-top role that requires a nuance few others could have brought to the more heavily dramatic moments. There's a lot of pain behind Ma's posturing and toughness so the real mastery in Davis' carefully calibrated performance comes when she allows us a peak behind that facade to earn a glimpse of it.

Knowing talent alone won't be nearly enough to overcome the prejudice, the flashy, egotistical Levee instantly becomes a threat to Ma's dominance, staking his claim to the spotlight. But regardless of how talented he considers himself, his attitude and temper get in the way. If the general feeling amongst the band members is that they can barely tolerate someone who hasn't paid his dues in the business, they eventually find out he's paid them in life, and then some. The entire story rests with Boseman's performance, to the point that everything else feels like a warm-up until Levee's triggered by the other band members about his "sucking up" to the white man. This leads to an emotional explosion, as well as some painful confessions about his upbringing that knock his bandmates on their heels. And the tensions only worsen from there. 

With a glimmer in his eye and a self-deprecating smile, Boseman initially disarms you, but at a certain point that turns, sending Levee over an edge he won't return from for the film's duration, lashing out in wildly unpredictable ways. The religious, mild-mannered Cutler, whose honest attempts to play peacemaker with Levee, Ma and the producers fall short. Colman Domingo's subtly effective in creating an impression that Cutler's put out these fires within the band before and whatever problems exist should take a backseat to the music he clearly loves. Glynn Turman is equally memorable as the mid-mannered Toledo, offering experience and wisdom Levee would have been wise to listen to if he wasn't already so far gone, well on his way down a path to inevitable violence.

In joining the many stage-to-screen productions in the past year such as One Night in Miami and The Father, this probably feels like the stagiest, if only due to the musical component and the fact its monologues are far lengthier. But clocking in at just over and hour and a half, Wolfe and writer Ruben Santiago-Hudson really keep it moving, with the story itself speaking volumes. The characters mistakenly direct all their rage at each other, while the true tragedy comes in the realization they may not have had much of a choice. The very last scene confirms Ma's dire prediction, with her and Levee proving to be no more or less expendable than the rest, as the label executives were only ever going to see one thing, no matter how hard they were pushed to think otherwise.   

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.        

Prisoners

 

Director:  Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Dylan Minnette
Running Time: 153 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Prisoners is one of those thrillers where you can't really reveal anything. The plot is so full of twists and turns that even a basic description risks revealing too much. It's common knowledge that when children are abducted the chances of finding them greatly decreases with each passing minute. This film is about what happens during those passing minutes to the victims' families, the detective assigned to the case and the primary suspect. Having him in custody is merely the start of this strange, twisted journey that doesn't qualify as the run-of-the-mill mainstream suspense thriller or police procedural it was advertised as. Some will claim it does, and that director Denis Villeneuve, writer Aaron Guzikowski and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins are just doing a really good job hiding it. And if they are, more power to them. But I'd argue Prisoners does bend quite a few rules, keeping you on the edge of your seat for two and a half hours without a clue what could happen from one minute to the next. And yet it never overstays its welcome since those involved seem to know exactly what they're doing, as an overwhelming sense of competence engulfs the project, making it impossible to not be swept along for the ride. 

When Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family attend Thanksgiving dinner with their neighbors, the Birches, both families' young daughters, Anna and Joy, go out for a walk. They don't return. The only clue is an old RV parked on the street belonging to a mentally disabled young man named Alex Jones (Paul Dano), who has an IQ of a ten-year-old and lives with his aunt, Holly (Melissa Leo). He's clearly the prime suspect, but when the detective in charge of the case, David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), brings him in for questioning, it's discovered they don't have nearly enough to hold him. That's when an enraged Dover decides to take the law into his own hands and deal with Alex himself. Things start to get ugly as Loki suddenly has three equally difficult jobs in finding the abductor, locating the girls and managing an out of control Dover, who's hell bent on finding his daughter his way, without the authorities' help. With hardly any support from his superiors, Loki must piece together a series of bizarre clues and evidence, just as another suspect emerges who's somehow even creepier than Alex. Minutes turn to hours and then to days, and with that comes the increased chance this will turn from an abduction case to a murder investigation, and the search will soon be for bodies.

What's atypical here is that the main suspect's guilt is in legitimate doubt for nearly entire length of the picture, to the point that your suspicion of Alex literally wavers from one scene to the next. At first, Dover seems like an irrational hothead so worked up by his daughter's abduction that he's willing to go after the only person who emerges as a believable suspect. While that's at least partially true, he discovers a few pieces of seemingly irrefutable evidence that causes him to (somewhat justifiably) fly off the deep end at the news of his release from custody. Dover may not be an easy character to like, but he's an easier one to root for because it's impossible not to feel for a father put in that situation. If nothing else, you have to respect his consistency even when his methods are flawed. And there's also the very real possibility he's right and that the police squandered the one lead they had..Jackman's an actor known for his natural charm and charisma but it's completely buried here to the point of invisibility. In its place is the pure anger and intensity of a man who will stop at nothing to find his daughter, no matter how much his vigilantism is frowned upon by his overmedicated wife Grace (Maria Bello) and Joy's parents, Franklin and Nancy (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis). You've never seen Jackman like this as the role is a complete 180 from most of what he's tackled before, challenging our perceptions of what we thought him capable of in a leading role.

Gyllenhaal is in full Zodiac mode as Detective Loki, with the key exception being that he's playing as actual cop this time around and the character has a much harder, experienced edge to him. It definitely deserves its place in the "Glylenhaal of Fame" of performances right alongside his work in Zodiac, Donnie Darko and Source Code. Loki's definitely the hero of the story, rarely misstepping in the face of seemingly impossible odds and tangled webs of circumstantial clues. Just as we doubt Alex's involvement, of equal doubt is whether this detective can even crack the case. While much of that uncertainty comes from the twisty plot, credit should also be extended to Paul Dano's unnerving performance as Alex, which fluctuates so wildly between pure creepiness and an almost childlike innocence that we begin to seriously second guess our understanding of the character's motivations. Has he really been falsely accused or is this a superbly calculated performance within a performance? An almost entirely mute Dano never tips his hand too far in either direction with Alex's behavior, all while spending three quarters of the film under physical assault and abuse.

Cold and calculating in both tone and execution, this almost feels like a more mainstream B-side to David Fincher's Zodiac or Se7en. This is especially noticeable in the rain-drenched, darkened setting, which Roger Deakins lights to make as much of a character as any of the actual characters inhabiting it. What starts as a relatively simple case evolves into something increasingly complex and morally ambiguous. That the title "prisoners" could reasonably refer to any number of characters speaks to the script's ingenuity. But more importantly, the the movie speaks to every parent's worst nightmare in capturing the horror of a child abduction in middle class suburbia. Then it goes ten steps further, concluding with a chilling, unshakeable final shot befitting the strongest thriller of the year. Endings are always tough, but this one absolutely nails it, combing just the right mixture of ambiguity and closure. The only worry in revisiting the film is that the revelations are so surprising you'd wonder how multiple viewings could impact the appreciation of how well it narratively holds together. Luckily though, despite carrying a lot of plot, Prisoners gets all the other small, important details right that most thrillers of recent years haven't even bothered with.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Director: Stephen Daldry
Starring: Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Thomas Horn, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Caldwell
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Sometimes you hear so much about a movie it's difficult to approach it with a clean slate. In the case of Stephen Daldry's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, it's practically impossible. Considered by many as one of the weakest Best Picture nominees in years, just the announcement of its shocking inclusion last February elicited a chorus of gasps and groans. Whether its dissenters even actually saw the film or not, you'd have to figure much of that had to do with its 9/11 subject matter. And that's exactly what this comes down to since the picture isn't nearly awful enough on its own terms to provoke such a passionate response. And it certainly isn't controversial. Did it deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Of course not. There are some problems with it and it's emotionally manipulative to a point. But at the end of the day it's a mildly successful examination of how an eccentric, intelligent young boy with an emotional spectrum disorder deals with death. Featuring some really strong performances and a plot hole big enough to drive a truck through, that's all there is to it. A mixed bag, but 2 hours mostly well spent.

Based on the 2005 novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, it tells the story of Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), son of jeweler Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks), who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, a date Oskar frequently refers to as "the worst day." Through flashbacks we see the special bond between the two up until his father's death with Thomas often sending Oskar on wild scavenger hunts to find hidden objects throughout New York City. Following 9/11 Oskar emotionally withdraws from his mother Linda (Sandra Bullock) with any discussion of that day ending in a shouting match. After working up the courage to explore his father's untouched closet 8 months later, he discovers a small envelope marked "Black" with a mysterious key inside. Assuming his dad left it there for him to find, Oskar looks up everyone with that last name in the the phone book sets out on one last expedition to find the lock it fits. His sole companion on the trip is the The Renter (Max Von Sydow), a mute old man living with his grandmother whom he befriends. With maps in hand and routes planned out, the quest is as much Oskar's way to extend time with his deceased father and make sense of what happened as it is to find the lock. He won't stop until he solves the mystery, but in doing so he may be forced to come to the realization his father's actually gone.

This is a strange film and for all the criticisms leveled against it at least it presents a type of protagonist we've never seen before but whose patterns of behavior will be immediately recognizable to some. During Oskar's voiceover narration in the first hour he states he was tested for Asperger's but the results came back inconclusive. Maybe in an effort to drum up some ambiguity for the character or fear that officially diagnosing him would create a pity party, Academy Award winning screenwriter Eric Roth lets the viewers speculate as to whether something's wrong with him. Well, there clearly is. He's either a really high functioning autistic or suffers from Asperger's. It's more likely the latter and I kind of wish they had just come out and said that as it would have quelled many of the complaints against the film and Horn's performance, which is remarkable if you're able to separate the actor from the character. Oskar's supposed to be annoying, over-emotional and overbearing, so Horn, a child Jeopardy winner with no previous acting experience, often narrates the story as if he were rattling off  facts on that game show. It becomes uncomfortable when he gives extremely detailed descriptions of of every tiny aspect of the "worst day" but it's supposed to be and it's in line with the character. As for the 9/11 scenes themselves all I can say is that they feel terrifying rather than offensive or emotionally manipulative. Nothing seems to come off as disrespectful, even though that doesn't even address the real issue here. Despite a handful of films having already been released handling the topic, the question of whether it's "too soon" will keep coming up and while it's up to each individual viewer to decide that for themselves, those against the idea would still be against it regardless of how this was presented.

The first hour of the film literally lives up to its title as we probably spend about as much one on one time with this kid that is bearable, but luckily the flashbacks with his father work and Tom Hanks is his usual likable self. Bullock, in her first post-Blind Side role, is affecting too, with nearly all the uncomfortable 9/11 scenes falling squarely on her lap. It isn't necessarily a large part, but it's challenging and she delivers a nice, low key performance. Her character won't be winning any "Mother of the Year" awards as the film's biggest flaw is how she'd let a 11-year-old just wander the streets of New York. There's an attempt at an explanation for this later but it's a weak one that does little to erase a huge gap in logic that could have easily been fixed by having him just run away instead.

The arrival of Max Von Sydow's mute unnamed renter into the story may as well mark the start of the film as that's when the narrative starts gaining real momentum. From the minute he appears the 82-year-old's Oscar-nominated supporting turn provides the young actor with someone interesting and more experienced to bounce off of during the journey.What's more impressive than Von Sydow giving an entirely silent performance is that it's so expressive that words would have probably been a distraction. He gets his point across so clearly he doesn't even need them and any scene in the film without him seems weaker because of it. Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright give small but crucial performances as two strangers Oskar meets on his adventure and elevate their material considerably, especially Wright who figures in huge in the third act. And for a movie centering around a mystery that really isn't "about" the mystery, its payoff is surprisingly satisfying. 

Having carried the similarly controversial Holocaust drama The Reader to a detested Best Picture nomination in 2008, director Stephen Daldry has proven he isn't afraid to tackle tumultuous subject matter through a sentimental lens. He goes all out here, but respectfully and with a consistent tone, resulting once again in a mild success. So far there have actually been quite a few movies that in some form or another revolve around the 9/11 tragedy. United 93 and World Trade Center were dramatic interpretations of the actual event with the former employing a docudrama approach that gave the material a frightening sense of immediacy. 25th Hour and Reign Over Me touched on the aftermath, with the latter controversially using it as a plot device. What all these movies have in common is that no one was particularly comfortable with that day or its aftermath being depicted at all, regardless of their quality. In many ways this is the 9/11 film everyone's been dreading and hoped Hollywood wouldn't make because it involves a child coping with the tragedy. But its tough to argue that's not the most honest entry point. Neither exploitive or inspirational, it's a slightly above average, well acted drama that got too much attention for reasons unrelated to what's onscreen.

The Help

Director: Tate Taylor
Starring: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, Ahna O' Reilly, Allison Janey, Emma Henry, Chris Lowell, Cicely Tyson, Mike Vogel, Sissy Spacek
Running Time: 146 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ¼ (out of ★★★★) 

From a critical standpoint, The Help is underrated. It may seem like a strange comment to make about a decently reviewed awards contender beloved by many and that's grossed over $200 million, but it seems whenever the film's discussed there's always some qualifier belittling or explaining away its success. The most pointed accusation slung its way is that it's a "whitewashing" of racism, taking what's obviously extremely sensitive and important issue and sanitizing it for mainstream entertainment, even going so far as to filter it all through the eyes of a white protagonist. Accused of engaging in revisionist history, many have claimed it presents a Hollywood version of the Jim Crow South that fails to make everyone understand the true pain and suffering blacks experienced during that time. But could any film do that? Should it? Going into Tate Taylor's The Help (based on Kathryn Sockett's 2009 bestselling novel) I expected mainstream fluff, kind of a Hallmark greeting card or Lifetime movie of the week transported to the big screen. Something like The Blind Side meets Driving Miss Daisy. But it's instead a well acted, well directed drama that works as a snapshot of a time and a depiction of attitudes. This isn't pretending to be something it's not, and overlooking that is the biggest mistake that can be made critiquing it. And if it is fluff someone forgot to tell the talented array of actresses who carry it. If anything, it should be praised, not derided, for deftly handling a difficult topic with an intelligence uncommon among most mainstream movies.

It's the early 60's in Jackson, Mississippi and 23 year-old Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) is fresh out of college with a new job writing for the local newspaper, an opportunity frowned upon by her cancer-striken mother Charlotte (Alison Janey) who feels she should just find a man and settle down. Upon discovering their longtime maid Constantine (Cicely Tyson) had mysteriously quit then disappeared while she was away, Skeeter's eyes are opened to the racist attitudes her friends and neighbors have toward "the help." The worst of them is stuck-up socialite and Junior League president Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard) who actually proposes a "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" that would provide separate bathrooms for their black housekeepers. Having not been brought up racist, Skeeter starts questioning these injustices and comes up with the idea to write a book from their perspective, detailing the feelings of maids who've sacrificed own lives to raise white children who will more than likely grow up to become racists themselves. Two maids, the quiet, somber Abileen Clark (Viola Davis) and tough talking Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) agree to participate. The former quietly soldiers forward while mourning the death of her son while the latter isn't afraid of telling it like it is, a trait that gets her fired by Hilly and eventually taken under the employ of social outcast Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain). With the deadline from her editor fast approaching, Skeeter must get as many stories from the help as she can, which proves difficult considering the potential consequences of the book's publication.

What really jumps out about the story are the hypocritical attitudes of these well-to-do white women who trust the help enough to let them essentially raise their children, but refuse to share a bathroom with them because of the color of their skin.  While Skeeter is the first to notice this inane reasoning and sets in motion a plan to rectify it, the story really isn't about her. Those complaining the maids' histories are being dictated to a white person should consider the likelihood of any editor publishing a book by a black housekeeper during that era, not mention the chances they'd risk their lives trying to write one. The character of Skeeter actually makes the events seem more plausible, not less. So by even employing this narrative device (taken straight from the novel) the film's already operating at a higher level of realism than it's being given credit for. But the movie is all about the performances, which are just about as good as any from an ensemble cast this year.

As the narrator and centerpiece of the story, Viola Davis has surprisingly limited screen time and dialogue as Aibileen, but the the film never needs to go to the ugly places everyone's complaining it doesn't because all the pain, suffering and indignity these maids begrudgingly endure is visible on Davis' face. Given the opportunity to finally speak out against injustice she's justifiably filled with mixed feelings since it's the only life she knows, as awful as it is. Octavia Spencer steals the spotlight as the feisty Minny, role that was specifically written with the longtime character actress in mind. The special surprise she delivers to her former employer Hilly is easily the funniest moment in the picture, as an ignorant racist finally gets her comeuppance courtesy of an unusual dessert. That a movie covering this topic can even have funny moments and we don't feel guilty laughing should be proof enough something was done right.

Bryce Howard is brilliantly detestable as Hilly, and while she's the kind of villain you just want to reach through the screen and strangle, Howard's portrayal impressively avoids turning her into a one-dimensional caricature. As in her supporting turn in this year's cancer dramedy 50/50, she makes her character's deplorable actions seem real and sad, not manufactured for the sake of cheap drama. Sissy Spacek provides scene-stealing comic relief as Hilly's mother, who's losing her marbles but can still see what an annoying brat her daughter's turned into. Emma Stone is charmingly goofy and endearing as Skeeter, in a difficult role that most other actresses in her age range likely would have struggled with. She pulls off a surprisingly convincing southern accent, handles the more dramatic scenes well, and effectively conveys Skeeter's insecurity and outspoken bravery. Making her sixth or seventh screen appearance this year, 2011's biggest acting discovery Jessica Chastain disappears into Marilyn Monroe lookalike Celia, a social outcast who ends up having a lot more substance to her than it seems at first. On the outskirts and sheltered from the racist views of her peers, the emotional bond she forms with new employee Minny is one of the film's many surprising pleasures.

The big mystery and what her mother's been keeping from Skeeter is what exactly happened with their longtime help Constantine while she was away at school. It's a secret that's kept throughout the entire film, until being revealed in a flashback in the third act and without spoiling anything, I'll just say it's one hell of a scene. I can't understand how anyone can watch this powerful sequence and the heartbreaking performances of Allison Janey and Cicely Tyson in it and still claim this is just fluff.  There's an indelible image that concludes this expertly directed and acted scene that's difficult to shake after it's passed, regardless of anyone's feelings on the film's treatment of history as a whole.

Is the movie meant to be a mainstream audience pleaser? Absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with that. While there are inherent limitations when you take this approach and the length of ten football fields separates the quality of something like this and the year's higher quality films like The Tree of Life or Drive, I still wouldn't begrudge the casual moviegoer--who maybe sees only a handful of features each year--for naming it one their favorites. To say it's "dumbed down" for mainstream audiences or they want to be spoon-fed a revisionist history isn't exactly fair since the presentation of the material never really backs that argument up. It's presented in a manner that definitely aims to make it feel more accessible, but it isn't dumb. If anything, it would hopefully get viewers unaware of the exact history to learn more about the actual events that inspired it or seek the kind of documentary some critics are complaining this isn't. And it shouldn't be punished for tackling a sensitive topic in more lightweight manner, especially if its intentions are clearly laid out from the onset and it doesn't waver in that approach all the way through. It was obvious from the first frame what the goal of the film was and it almost flawlessly delivers on that promise with just a few missteps, such as a poorly developed sub-plot involving Skeeter and her boyfriend (Chris Lowell), that's left dangling without any clear resolution.  

Negotiating his way some tough tonal territory, relatively unknown director Tate Taylor keeps the pace moving breezily along for almost two and a half hours, while the production, costume design and cinematography succeed in creating a feel for the setting and period. Given all the complaints I heard before seeing it, you'd figure the film toppled Gone With The Wind in its stereotypical depiction of black maids in the south, but these two characters are way too well written and performed to even jokingly warrant such a comparison. They're strong, brave women trying to improve their situation, not helpless caricatures.

I know it's generally frowned upon for a critic to even react to the reaction of others to a film, but getting to it so late and hearing so many accusations beforehand, there really wasn't much choice. I'll admit it probably doesn't bode well for its shelf life that I had to work this hard defending it. Great movies should be enthusiastically praised without reservation rather than defended with a laundry list of excuses of why it isn't as bad as everyone says it is, followed by an apology. And because the filmmakers took this lighter approach it just simply won't stay in the mind as long as something with more substance to it. That's no one's fault, just an inevitability when the decision was made in the pre-production stage to remain faithful to the source material. I understand and even appreciate many of the criticisms leveled against it, but at the same time there's no denying the on screen results are above average in every possible category. The unusual rating above comes from sensing this is exactly the kind of movie I'll forget about it in less than a month, if I haven't already. Or maybe I'm just kind of disturbed only half a star would separate this from the very best, putting it on par with films that actually do dig deeper. Either way, it seems those most offended by The Help are more against the idea of it being made in the first place, which becomes another issue altogether. In this case, approaching a movie for what it is rather than what it isn't, is a tip some critics could have taken from audiences.