Inside Out (5/5 Stars)

Imagine a movie that is at once wholly original and also completely familiar, startlingly simplistic in its scope yet containing multitudes of creativity and cavernous depths of emotion, and that can also make you laugh routinely, thrill you unexpectedly, and move you to near tears consistently. You would be describing Pixar’s newest feature “Inside Out,” a journey inside the mind of an 11-old-girl from Minnesota who has just moved to her new home in San Francisco. She endures a first day at a new school, a disappointing hockey tryout, and vegan pizza. Little stuff it seems to grown ups but to Riley it is the greatest obstacle she has gone through in a life that hereto had been filled with consistently joyful days. It is also the greatest obstacle her brain trust has ever handled. And by brain trust I mean Pixar’s anthropomorphized metaphor for her mind: a team of emotions that help Riley out from a mission control room in her brain.

The emotions have been perfectly cast from the broad and ever more productive landscape of quality television entertainment. At the center is Joy, voiced by the ever effervescent Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation), Disgust, an appropriately snarky Mindy Kaling (The Mindy Project), Fear, a fever pitched Bill Hader (SNL), Anger, Lewis Black (The Daily Show) as himself, and finally Sadness, Phyllis Smith (The Office) in all her humble muted Eeyore-like glory. They function, in a tribute to Pixar’s ability to have it all, as part comedy team, part tearjerk squad, and part science lesson. (If their was an emotion left out, I would posit “desire” which would be the antithesis of Disgust much like Anger and Fear or Joy and Sadness play off of each other so well. Perhaps “Desire” shows up at 13).

This is the sort of movie that transcends movie-ness. Instead of talking about whether the movie looked good or was funny, you want to talk about how the movie was about what it was about. After all, everything that is shown onscreen corresponds to something everybody has experienced but does not really understand. We have these unconscious bodies that operate seemingly disconnected with our consciousness. What connect the two are our feelings. But how do those work? Pixar probably is not that far off. The emotions experience Riley’s life through her frontal lobe (this is a bit like the front windshield of a starship). They can’t tell Riley what to do, but they do color her experiences as they form memories (represented by luminous balls). If it is a happy memory, then Joy turns it yellow. If it is a fearful memory, Fear turns it purple. At the end of the day before the colored balls are shipped off to long-term memory (which apparently is consistent with what really happens when we are asleep), if the wall of short-term memory balls are mostly yellow than the team feels that they have had a good day. Their mission is to keep Riley happy. This presents a problem with the character of Sadness whose presence and efforts to help generally disrupt the mission. At one point Joy draws a circle around her and tells her to not leave it as a way of doing her job correctly. Psychologists have a word for this I believe. It’s called Repression. That’s a rather heavy topic for an animated movie to tackle, but Pixar goes even further. Near the denouement of this movie they will tackle the big D. Depression. And the way they do it will probably make you cry and afterwords you will probably think about why you cried and find a very plausible explanation in the way Pixar has portrayed the workings of the emotions in your mind. And you will probably feel better in an enlightened way because feeling sad is sometimes the most healthy way to respond to external stimuli. Psychologists would call that Emotional Maturity, an attribute that the marketers in our modern society have a habit of scorning. Fear it, they say, and buy this thing that will make you happy again. No, says Pixar, Sadness is there for a reason and the wise person would understand its utility. This is the sort of thing that Pixar has made a children’s movie about. To do that as perfectly as they demonstrate is to be a masters of emotions themselves. I tell you this: not since Hitchcock has a moviemaker been so in tune with what the audience is experiencing moment to moment.

But I get too serious. Let’s talk about comedy and how Pixar does not waste a moment in the entire movie when a joke can be somehow shoehorned in. First of all, the brain trust with all their distinct personalities form as good a comedy troupe as there can be. Through a mishap Joy and Sadness are stranded in Long Term Memory and need to find their way back to the control room.  Their journey takes them through several wonderful set pieces as Imagination Land, Abstract Thought, and Dreamworks Productions that has among other things a unicorn as a movie star.  They meet many comic characters. My favorite are the brain beureaucrats. One team works at Long Term memory and “forget” any balls that are rarely used. For instance they take away all of Riley’s piano lessons except “Heart and Soul” and “Chopstix”. But the really funny part is what they keep: a commercial jingle for ‘Triple Dent’ gum which they reuse again and again as a practical joke. Riley is destined to never ever forget it. Another good example is the two guards in front of the door of the subconscious (which hides an angry clown) that perform what sounds like an Abbot and Costello routine about whose hat is “my hat”. Then another time Joy knocks over two boxes, one of Facts and the other of Opinions. As she tries to put them back she exclaims how similar they look. And I haven’t even mentioned the imaginary friend voiced by Richard Kind who is the best part along with everything else.

“Inside Out” is one of Pixar’s best movies. And I say one of the best because I happen to believe “Wall-E” is one of the best movies ever made. So is this movie. When Wall-E (and “The Dark Knight”) failed to get a Best Picture nomination the Academy expanded the field to ten pictures the next year. That should easily include “Inside Out” this year and I’m not saying it should win (I can’t because I haven’t seen all the other movies) but I would be totally fine with the possibility.

Jurassic World (2/5 Stars)

Nerd Pandering

If I had made a spoof of the Jurassic Park franchise, it might have been remarkably similar to “Jurassic World.” This movie is not too far away from being a total joke. Take two main plot points. First, the theme park “Jurassic World” is not growing in attendance because people are bored with the same old dinosaurs and the investors are getting anxious. Say what? A theme park with dinosaurs is losing its appeal after only ten years in existence? Surely that is one of the most absurd scenarios in the history of movies. But whatever, in reaction to this scenario the theme park is training velociprators like bloodhounds and creating a newer, bigger, more dangerous dinosaur. You see their focus groups suggest that giant carnivourous dinosaurs tend to draw larger crowds. These new attractions have gotten the attention of the U.S. Military which brings us to the second plot point. A contractor named Hoskins (Vincent D’Onofrio) exclaims “Imagine what we could have done with these guys in Tora Bora!?!” I can actually answer that question. An Al Queada soldier with a sniper rifle would take down the raptor from about 500 yards away. And that’s if the beast could actually be transported to Afghanistan in the first place. And these absurdities are what drive the main plot conflicts of the story. Really. This movie just made a record 200 million dollars in one weekend. The silver lining to that I guess is that this movie would not have made nearly enough without the enormous goodwill garnered by the first two very good Spielberg films. So, at least in this instance, critics can be assured that bad movies don’t come out of nowhere and make tons of money. They stand on the shoulders of actually good movies and also in this case a pretty good book.

Let’s talk about the dinosaurs. They are relatively deficient from past movies in their capacity to provoke wonderment or thrills. The lack of wonder has much to do with the movie’s insistence via the characters that the dinosaurs are not so special. In the first movie you followed the reactions of paleontologists whose every dream came true when they saw their first living dinosaur. Contrast that with the two kids who visit the park in this movie. One of them, a child, is sufficiently excited. The other, a teenager, is more interested in girls. I felt like smacking him upside the head for most of the movie. It matters less what is on the screen than what the characters think about it. The experience of movie going is a vicarious one. If the characters don’t care than the wonder is not extended to the viewer. The fact that “Jurassic World” had one of its main characters not be all that impressed with dinosaurs really undercut the whole reason to see this movie: i.e. that it had fucking dinosaurs in it.

These dinosaurs are less thrilling than the ones in the original movie. Now I’m going to make a distinction in the technology but keep in mind that there is actually no particular reason why computer images could not do both. Think back to the original movie and pick out some of the more visceral moments, perhaps the Velociraptor in the kitchen tapping its big claw, or the water vibrating, or Wayne Knight’s death, or the girl being sneezed upon. None of these little things employed computer effects. It would be absurd to use computer effects for them, as they were not needed. However in the new movie, as far as I can tell, the dinosaurs are completely computer generated even for the moments when it isn’t needed, i.e. closeups on faces. And those dino faces look unnecessarily weird to me compared with the first movies. But as before it is not really the problem that the dinos are almost entirely computer generated. The real problem is that there are not really any moments that do not call for computer generation. There are no little moments. All the moments are big. And this is a problem because you need little moments to create suspense (i.e. water vibrating) and also to explain things.

Filmmakers studying Spielbergian masterpieces such as Jaws and Jurassic Park (as no doubt the director of “Jurassic World” Colin Trevorrow has) continually draw the wrong lessons from them. They assume that if you do not see a monster for a significant length of time that it suddenly becomes scarier. This is not true. The reason why the shark and the dinos are scary in those movies is because they are thoroughly explained. That is to say in “Jaws” Richard Dreyfuss explains in length the nature of Great White Sharks and in “Jurassic Park” a paleontologist explains how velociraptors attack in herds.  It amazes me how these scenes are sometimes the first ones dropped in inferior movies. What you get instead is movie cheats wherein the creature, not being defined, is allowed to arbitrarily gain and lose supernatural powers at the movies whim. Here the new dinosaur is allowed to camoflauge himself amongst the trees. This somehow makes it impervious to bullets, lots and lots of bullets. Or take the raptors, which can be trained to follow orders from Chris Pratt until they don’t want to until they want to again. It also does not help when the ambitions of the movie are so great in scope that a wild animal as a villain just cannot work without it having absurd levels of competence in fighting modern technological war machines. Sometimes for the purposes of thrills that do not insult the intelligence of the audience it is better to have a boat that is not big enough.

Now lets talk about the secondary attractions, the people. There is not much to say here other than how well they play out stock imitations of other Spielbergian characters and tropes, most explicitly the one where an adult needs to stop working so much and spend more time with the kids. Then there is Chris Pratt doing his best ‘Indiana Jones’ impression. Not bad although I think he really should be drinking a beer in his first scene and not a coke (and who drinks coke from bottles anymore?). BD Wong, the scientist from the first movie, is back as a scientist here. His presence is nerd pandering which I will get to next. The same can be said about the characters of Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus the computer nerds in the control room. Again, more on that later. Bryce Dallas Howard plays a vapid corporate dummy who disrepects nature and is too high strung and organized for a relationship with Pratt to work. She has these high heels. Pratt at one point when they are in the midst of nature with danger all around them ridicules her decision to wear them. He is right of course. She shouldn’t be wearing them in this context and high heels in general are rather vain and unbecoming for someone already in charge with nobody to impress. So that’s a good criticism. But then the movie does something else: It insists that Bryce continue to wear the high heels the rest of the movie past many scenes when either a sane person would have ditched them or they would have broken past repair many times. Now given that the character is only wearing the heels because the movie itself (written, directed, and produced by guys) has been intent on making her wear them beyond all suspension of disbelief, is it really okay to make fun of the woman’s character for wearing them in the first place. I would suggest that it is not but this is the sort of thing one generally gets when a movie deems as its mission to above all else pander to nerds. In this particular case nerds like to think of themselves as Han Solo and that every girl is Princess Leia who would fall head over heels for them if only they weren’t so stuck up. Chris Pratt and Bryce Howard Dallas are just another reiteration of that classic type of nerd pandering.

I don’t like nerds. I don’t think there is another group of people who would sit through all sorts of stupid drivel as long as it patted them on the back and made them feel special. But boy do studios love nerds. Make a movie about their favorite comic book and the nerds will feel compelled to show up as a matter of honor perhaps if only for the opportunity to complain loudly about how terrible it was done. So the incentive to make decent movies is lessened right there. What is more is that the nerds routinely react with glee when sequels or reboots incorporate the best jokes and lines of the original movie. “Jurassic World” is no exception. There are a ton of inside jokes and callbacks to “Jurassic Park” (Hell, look at Jake Johnson’s “Jurassic Park” shirt) and “Jaws” that make the plot more predictable and all the action tinted with a sense of déjà vu. There is the ‘objects look closer than they appear in the mirror’ gag, there is ‘the loosening of a giant tooth from a vehicle’ trope, there is the ‘flare baiting of the T-Rex’ scene. The best example of all is the musical score. It isn’t John Williams great score from ‘Jurassic Park.’ It is a similar but inferior version whose best quality is to remind you of how great the original was. The most frustrating thing about “Jurassic World” is not that it isn’t a great movie, it’s that it cynically did not even allow itself the space to be a great movie. It deliberately set out to be a nostalgia piece. And the ones to blame are the nerds because they do not insist that their movies challenge them. (One could perhaps argue that the whole idea of having superpowers is an immature way of escaping real world problem solving). As long as they go and see the next Spiderman reboot every five years why would the studios ever give them something different.  

Welcome to Me (3/5 Stars)

Well, what is a borderline personality disorder? I concede that it is a thing because it sounds vaguely familiar to me, but I would not trust myself to describe it accurately. And I just watched an entire movie in which the main character a woman by the name of Alice Klieg (Kristin Wiig) explores all of its facets in a very public way. The very public way she does socially awkward things I suspect is part of her disorder. But in another sense she does a lot of things that utterly stupid though completely sane people are capable of as well. The distinction is important especially in a comedy because stupid people are funny but mentally ill people are not. So which of Alice Klieg’s actions fall into what camp? A better definition of what ails her would help the audience out quite a bit. As it is, the prevailing feeling in the theater is, “should we be laughing at this?”

Alice Klieg lives alone and with the TV on nonstop. She especially likes talk shows like Oprah. One day she wins the lottery, a seventy million dollar jackpot. She has a conversation with her psychotherapist (Tim Robbins) in which she explains that she will stop taking her medication and move into a casino hotel room. She also has big plans for an Oprah like talk show. She pitches the idea to a local access production channel. “I want it to be about me,” she explains, “and I want to come in on a Swan boat.” The head of the channel (James Marsden) asks for 150K per show for 100 shows. She immediately takes out her checkbook. After the meeting the other members of his production company, his brother (Wes Bentley) and two producers (Jennifer Jason Leigh and Joan Cusack), balk at the idea. But Marsden explains that they are almost broke. They either take the money or start laying people off.  So “Welcome to Me,” a show written, directed, and hosted by a crazy person is born on the local access channel in the 10am two hour time slot.

This is a very interesting premise with lots of potential as a movie but the pitfalls should be rather obvious. The main one is that making fun of a person with mental illness is not a nice thing to do. And if you don’t make fun of them, than where is the comedy going to come into play. The best example of a movie making that leap is David O. Russell’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ that has several characters with some sort of madness in them. But at the same time they aren’t completely defined by their madness. That is to say they are people with personalities that have disorders not just clinical manifestations of the disorder itself. This allows their behavior to be guided by choices. Choices maybe influenced by the illness sure, but choices nevertheless. The clear demarcation of where illness ends and personality begins is how the viewer knows whether to laugh at Bradley Cooper wearing a garbage bag while he is running. There is reason behind it. He wants to lose weight and the bag helps him sweat. And yes he knows he looks ridiculous but he doesn’t care because he is very excited and focused on what he is doing. The “excited” and “focused” is part of his disorder but Cooper puts on the bag ultimately for sane reasons: he wants to lose weight. His disorder doesn’t compel him to wear garbage bags while jogging for no reason. If it did, it would not be funny. It would be sad.

When Alice Klieg is shown sleeping on a bed in a sleeping bag as opposed to under the covers it is not explained why she wants to do this or even whether a borderline personality disorder would influence a person’s choice to do this. (I assumed germophobic reasons but then again I’m not sure what that has to do with bordline personality disorder). Or take the several instances in which she states that winning the lottery was not luck but due to believing in herself, an idea she got from watching Oprah. Now for all I know that could be part of the disorder. But it could also be the case that she is just a stupid person. I wish I knew because its mean to make fun of retarded people for being retarded and I’m not sure if that is what is going on here. Here is an example of an opportunity wasted: Very early on in the story we are told that Alice is off her medication. Well, okay. But what was she like when she was on medication? That would be a good clue as to what is happening with her. This is not explored by the movie.

To be clear the movie does not impinge upon the viewer any guilt from watching the proceedings. (If they were funnier perhaps they would. I am reminded a little bit of the remake of a French movie in which a group of elites host a competition to bring the biggest idiot they can find to dinner party.) The main reason is that Alice Klieg’s friends, family, and ultimately her cash-strapped employees act in good faith around her. Nobody tries to ouright steal her winnings. Sure having a TV show is an incredible waste of money but lottery money is fit to be wasted and to the production company’s credit, they try to do a competent job of realizing her vision. The TV show itself is the most interesting thing going on in this movie. Here Alice recreates dramatic scenes from her life, fake fights with her mom (an off-screen Joan Cusack) who always wins, makes and eats her favorite recipes, and even uses her past veterinary skills to neuter and spay any dogs the audience wants to bring into the studio. Something is going on in that studio and it may or may not be special but it is at least original. The reactions of the people working there are mixed. For instance Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character quits but it is not entirely clear whether she does so because she thinks the company is taking advantage of Alice or because she thinks the work is below her. Maybe both. Wes Bentley takes Alice out on a couple of dates because she asks him to. She is very intent on sleeping with him right away. Again it might be nice to know if that is the disorder working or plain horniness.

Is it possible to be cured of borderline personality disorder? The movie ends with Alice doing several things differently than she usually does in her normal routine like for instance sleeping under the covers instead of in a sleeping bag. I’m not sure what that means. As for Kristin Wiig’s performance, since I did not really understand the character, I’m not sure how to gauge its excellence. She is always interesting to watch and it speaks of good casting to put her into the main role here but her comic potential is limited by all the above. Comedy writers take note for your future endeavors: It is not enough that a person enters a room in a swan boat. That situation is not inherently funny. You have to know why they are doing it.

Mad Max: Fury Road (5/5 Stars)

The main criticism that well regarded movie critics have thrown at blockbusters from time immemorial is their lowest common denominator nature. As products intended for the masses the big corporate studios (only people who can afford to make big blockbuster movies) dumbed down and sanitized the product in an effort to have it appeal to the broadest audience possible. In recent years there has been a welcome shift away from that mission plan. The causes are not completely known (although for my money I would give much credit to the silent digital revolution in movies which makes them a lot cheaper to make) but the effects can be perhaps perfectly exemplified in the movie “Mad Max: Fury Road,” a great blockbuster that is definitively not for everybody. It is what I will call (and I am coining a phrase here, (Watch Out!) a “niche blockbuster.” Its appearance was foreshadowed by the delightfully kooky yet still rather tame blockbuster  “Guardians of the Galaxy” last year, but here it has fully come of age in the grotesque apocalyptic vision of Mad Max land. To say that “Mad Max: Fury Road,” is merely a reboot of the cult B-movies of the 1980s does not do it justice. This is a new type of movie and one that should give hope to all those that care about movies. We are going through a rather intense revolution in how media is consumed right now and the local movie theater will not be spared from change as well. If George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are to be believed (and why not they should know something) we may very well be on the verge of only having very expensive blockbusters in movie theaters and everything else being delegated to the ever expanding cinema realm of one’s living room. The pessimists then have predicted a future where one’s local cineplex no longer shows anything interesting, strange, or weird, (i.e. original), but that does not seem to be happening at least not entirely. As the biggest blockbusters get ever bigger the lesser blockbusters are becoming more targeted in their subject matter, tone, and intended audience. It is of great surprise and relief and wonder that Mad Max: Fury Road has retained the look and feel of the original movies. This shows great gumption in the studio heads that bankrolled the big budget because the original movies were cult movies for a reason. They were unapologetically focused on car chases in the unforgiving desert wasteland between inarticulate anti-heroes and the grotesque caricatures of really bad really ugly men. This is essentially the same in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the main exception being a desire to expand the audience beyond the average teenage male gearhead and allow women in on the fun. But women are allowed in only on Mad Max terms of course; the main female character Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron channeling her inner badass) has only one arm. Why? Well times are tough in the future and if women want to be part of the gang they have to be tough too. I think this movie may have broken the record for gun-toting biker grannies.

It will not take too long to summarize the plot of the movie. Mad Max (Tom Hardy) is taken prisoner by Immortan Joe, a terrifying slavemaster. As Mad Max is hanging down from the ceiling with his blood being drained out of him into a War Boy named Nux (Nicholas Hoult), news comes that Immortan Joe’s five harem sex slaves have been emancipated by one of his great warriors, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). Immortan Joe sets off after her with the help of his evil allies in Gas Town and the Bullet Farm (The two main economies of what is left of the world). There are also wild bandits. You can tell these guys apart because of their distinctive cars. They chase Imperator and then chase her some more. In between all of this Mad Max frees himself and teams up with Furiosa. That’s the movie essentially. Given that the original movies were no more complex this is exactly how complex the reboot should be if it were being faithful to the original material. The point has never been the screenplay. It is what is on the screen. 

And boy what is on the screen. First it should be mentioned that the world in “Mad Max” is a fully realized apocalyptic fever dream. Much like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ it would be entirely acceptable if the movie got Oscar Nominations for Makeup, Costumes, and Production Design. I cannot imagine those three things being any better in this movie. If I were to sum up the tone of the movie I would single out one of the main bad guy’s cars. Stationed on top of this large eighteen-wheeler is an electric guitarist backed by ginormous speakers, clad entirely in red leather and suspended in midair by multiple bungee chords. When he hits the climax of a particularly intense solo the guitar doubles as a flamethrower, which spews flames out of the top. A Whole Lotta Love right there in the production design.

The performances are exactly what they should be. Tom Hardy seems to get it. He speaks as little as possible and only in gruff monosyllabic mutters. The bad guys seem to come entirely from the World Wresting Federation. Imperator Furiosa is steely and resolved and totally resourceful. And then there is Nicholas Hoult’s Nux who is completely insane. The War Body army is a group of Albino Berserkers entirely convinced that death in battle is but the beginning of a paradise in Valhalla. They throw themselves in and around the cars in these battles with an extraordinary lack of self-preservation. Hoult’s performance is perhaps the best and most original performance in the movie. Thankfully, he sticks around much longer than one thinks possible and his presence is never less than interesting. I looked him up and was astonished that he is the kid from that Hugh Grant movie “About a Boy.” Incredible what he has grown up to be capable of. What is perhaps most important is that between all the great car chases we have still scenes that do not weigh down the story with melodrama or pretentiousness. There is an emotional core here that works even though it is not required to work all that hard.

The fights and car chases are essentially theatrical wrestling matches. There is no way in hell that cars can continue to function in any of these situations (particularly with all the desert dust going around) and no way in hell that men can take the kind of beatings they do here without any type of blood or bruises. But the action is well done. The physics are within the realm of the suspension of disbelief. And the viewer is never all that confused as to where and what everybody is doing. There is no Oscar nomination for Stunt Direction but when you see a movie that does it so well like this one does you can really grasp the injustice of such an omission. Next year I will certainly include such a category in my own Oscar picks. This movie would make a great video game by the way.

I think one more note can be said about this movie’s feminism. I’ve seen enough movies now to not be all that surprised by the prospect of a woman toting a gun or engaging in something else that is traditionally masculine. There is a tendency though for movies to really pat themselves on the back for their progressive views. That is getting a bit tiring. I think from now on just give the girls their guns and spare me the speeches about how daring the movie is being. It was daring when Ridley Scott and James Cameron did it in the 1980s. I was born in 1986 and don’t really remember a time when the movies weren’t feminist. Hell, Titanic came out when I was eleven and it took me at least a decade to actually see what old movies James Cameron was giving his pro-woman finger to (cough ‘Gone With the Wind’ cough cough). I’m not saying that ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is all that speechifying. It isn’t. But when you’ve got an army of gun-toting grannies in a major motion blockbuster franchise that is, if anything, defined by its testosterone, I think we can start giving the special treatment a rest. I’m not so impressed by the dog walking on its hind legs or even walking on its hind legs well anymore. 

OSCARS 2015

Usually I can find some type of narrative for a year in movies but 2014 proved elusive. I saw some good ones, a few great ones, but not a single one that stood out as the very best of the year. But here are a few thoughts: 

- The big action superhero blockbuster is on some level entering a level of supercompetence. I did not see one that was particularly bad this year. 

- I was inspired not only by the directiorial debut of a very young director Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) but also a very old one, Clint Eastwood, who just made one of his best movies in his mid-80s (American Sniper). Both movies were pleasant surprises to me.

- 'Birdman' though not special to me in a personal sense expanded my idea of how a movie can accomplish certain things. The long shots called attention to the actors and allowed the acting to be bigger and more theatrical. Here they expanded the role of the actors sometimes to theatrical levels. What a revelation!

- Go Texas. Houston born Wes Anderson, Austin native son Richard Linklater, and the movie 'American Sniper' were all great movies with that connection. You can make it a TexMex year if you include Alejandro Innaritu. On to the awards.

There were a certain categories that I did not watch anything in. One was the short films which is not unusual. The other was the foreign language category which is unusual. It just did not happen this year. I don't know why. 

Then there a couple categories in which I only saw one film that applies. So they win automatically. Thankfully they were deserving anyway.

Best Animated Feature Film

 The Lego Movie 

I was struck by how the movie seemed to have been written by a ten-year-old, which was very appropriate and highly satisfying. Also Will Ferrell had a touching cameo at the end that summed up all that Lego stands for. This was the best commercial I saw all year.

Best Documentary
CitizenFour

Not a great documentary in art and craft but its newsworthiness makes it a very important document of our time and place.

Best Supporting Actor:

Kim Bodnia – Rosewater

Josh Brolin – Inherent Vice

Ethan Hawke – Boyhood

Mark Ruffalo – Foxcatcher
J.K. Simmons – Whiplash

Always a tough category but Josh Brolin's turn as a SAG detective with a flattop haircut of Flinstone proportions in Inherit Vice was the most memorable fictional character I saw all year. 

Best Supporting Actress:

Patricia Arquette – Boyhood

Laura Dern - Wild
Eva Green – Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Jennifer Lawrence - X-Men: Days of Future Past
Emma Stone – Birdman

Always a very shallow category. Patricia Arquette gets it for her 12 year performance in 'Boyhood. Nobody else was close. The fact that Meryl Streep was nominated again shows that (and a very apparent lack of imagination in the Academy). 

Best Use of a Song:

“I Love You All” – Frank

“Come and Get Your Love” – Guardians of the Galaxy

 “Your Fault” – Into the Woods
“Everything is Awesome” – The Lego Movie

“Caravan” – Whiplash

I thought a lot about switching up Frank and Whiplash for this one but ultimately decided that I would give the Film Editing prize to Whiplash for its ending scene whereas the song that ends 'Frank' is not only original but the first original song in forever that actually deserved an Oscar. For some reason it was not nominated for an Oscar. That was the biggest surprise for me of the year in this pathetically shallow category.

Best Original Music Score:

Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game

Interstellar

Really the only Original Music Score that really stood out to me was the one from "The Grand Budapest Hotel." I am thinking of making this category just "Best Soundtrack" in the future. I would have at least nominated 'Chef' if that were the case. 

Best Sound Editing and Mixing

American Sniper

Birdman
Edge of Tomorrow
Interstellar

Whiplash

It seems like I say this every year but this is a category that is very hard for me to judge while watching the movie. Given that I had the same list of movies for Editing and Mixing and because a friend of mine basically told me that the people who do editing generally do the mixing as well, I combined the categories. Why American Sniper? Well, basically because I actually noticed the Sound Editing in that movie, particularly when Chris Kyle was back in the States and getting alerted by phantom sounds of warfare. It was effective.

Best Film Editing:

American Sniper

Foxcatcher

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Whiplash

Wild

The editing in Whiplash is truly extraordinary. It transforms the energy of a low budget first feature into the work of an accomplished director with many more millions of dollars to spend. This is cut like an action film and feels that way with nothing but jazz going on. 

Best Makeup:

Foxcatcher
Guardians of the Galaxy

The Grand Budapest Hotel

I generally don't go wild over makeup for Holy Mackeral this movie had Great Makeup. I especially liked blue robot woman.

Best Costume Design:

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Guardians of the Galaxy

Inherent Vice

Yes, that Summer Blockbuster had the most awesome costumes ever too. Take a look at what Benecio Del Toro was wearing in that one scene. And yellow prison suits: Awesome. 

Best Production Design:

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Interstellar

Into the Woods

A Most Violent Year

The Zero Theorem

Truly nothing else came close to the achievement of vision that is "The Grand Budapest Hotel." You could say that the movie was named after the production design.

Best Visual Effects:

Edge of Tomorrow

Guardians of the Galaxy

Interstellar

X-Men: Days of Future Past

The Zero Theroem

There is visual effects and then there is Visual Effects that you need astrophysicists to consult with to make right. This one is for the Black Hole. 

Best Cinematography:

Birdman

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Interstellar

A Most Violent Year

Nightcrawler

Lubezski wins his second Oscar in a row and rightly deserves both. He is the master of the long shot and teaches a master class here in how they should be done and more importantly why they should be done. 

Best Original Screenplay:

Wes Anderson, Hugo Guinness - The Grand Budapest Hotel

Jon Favreau - Chef

Justin Lader - The One I Love

Alejandro Innaritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinares Jr., Armando Bo - Birdman

J.C. Chandor - A Most Violent Year

I don't think I have seen a movie with so many great vocabulary words interspersed effortlessly thoughout the entire picture. When Jeff Goldblum is perfectly cast it is because you got some delicious words for him to chew on. 

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Jason Hall - American Sniper

Paul Thomas Anderson - Inherent Vice

Jon Stewart - Rosewater

Nick Hornby - Wild

Simon Kinberg - X-Men: Days of Future Past

Paul Thomas Anderson gets this for the ingenious way he crammed so many visual jokes into a such a complex and convoluted storyline. It is a feat to behold. 

Best Actress:

Elisabeth Moss – The One I Love

Kristin Wiig – The Skeleton Twins

Julianne Moore - Still Alice

Reese Witherspoon – Wild

Jessica Chastain – A Most Violent Year

This was not a great year for the Best Actress category. It could be easily said that Julianne Moore won it because she is a great actress who had not won the award yet and you know who else would you give it to this year. Besides her performance in "Still Alice" probably reminded the voters of a performance she had twenty years ago that probably was good enough to this year. That movie was "Safe" and it too was about a degenerative disease. See that movie. 

Best Actor:

Steve Carell – Foxcatcher

Bradley Cooper – American Sniper

Michael Fassbender – Frank

Michael Keaton – Birdman

Channing Tatum – Foxcatcher

Three of these nominees (Carell, Cooper, and Keaton) had career milestones this year. I'm giving this to Carell because his role is the most against type and also because his movie 'Foxcatcher' arguably had the best acting in a movie this year. 

Best Director:

Wes Anderson – The Grand Budapest Hotel

Paul Thomas Anderson – Inherent Vice

Damien Chazelle – Whiplash

Alejandro Innaritu – Birdman

Richard Linklater – Boyhood

It just cannot be denied any longer. There is no other director like Wes Anderson and he just turned in his best work in an already very impressive two decade career. 

Best Picture:

American Sniper

Birdman

Boyhood

Chef

Foxcatcher

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Inherit Vice

A Most Violent Year

Whiplash

X-Men: Days of Future Past

The Grand Budapest Hotel was the first movie I saw in theaters in 2014 and although I felt it was unlikely that I would not see a better movie all year I also knew that it was entirely possible that I had just seen the best movie of the year. I loved this movie. It was a poem to civilization crafted with all sorts of love.