Oscar 2014: Nomination and Predictions

I’ve stopped trying to make predictions about what films the Academy will nominate. Mostly because I’m really bad at it. Sure, some things are easy to guess. Looking at 2013’s slate of films, and considering the Academy’s taste, anyone could have guessed “Gravity,” “12 Years a Slave,” and “American Hustle” leading the nominations. However, did anyone predict “Inside Llewyn Davis” being relegated to a sole nomination in the technical categories? That “Lee Daniel's The Butler” would be totally locked out? Best Actor snubs for Tom Hanks / “Captain Philips” and Robert Redford / “All is Lost?” That Meryl Streep would get nominated again? Okay, we probably saw that one coming.

My point is that the AMPAS are finicky in their taste. I am not well-read enough in the world of modern Hollywood political bullshit to perfectly guess their decisions. I’ll try. And fail. These days I don’t even bother to see most of the potentially award-worthy films until after the nominations are announced. Let the Academy decide what is worth seeing. My own taste will direct me to what I like. Oscar’s taste can do the same for them. The difference is my opinions don’t dictate what the best and brightest the cinema world had to offer in 2013 was. This is my heavy-handed and long-winded way of saying that the Academy is frequently wrong, nobody cares but movie nerds like me, and we reserve the right to bitch and obsess over it.

As with the last few years, I’ll run down the important categories, offering my misguided, doubtlessly incorrect opinions and predictions on films I haven’t seen. It’s fun, right? Well, I think it’s fun anyway.


BEST PICTURE:
A few years back, the Academy made the public statement that there would be anywhere between five and ten Best Picture nominations. For some reason, this has evened out to nine nominations for the last few years. The Academy settled on nine this year seemingly just to exclude “Inside Llewyn Davis,” a film they inexplicably hated, from the top race.

“12 Years a Slave” and “Gravity” consistently top many critics' list and their inclusion here is no surprise at all. Despite its extreme content, downbeat tone, and indie-driven talent, “Slave” is exactly the kind of historical drama Oscar loves. “Gravity,” meanwhile, is a single-woman sci-fi thriller show, not the kind of thing the Academy usually goes for. It’s a testament to that film’s quality, critical praise, and massive box office success that it’s running nearly head-to-head with the socially relevant, performance-packed, historical drama.

Considering the Academy long-stated love of David O. Russell and Martin Scorsese, it’s also no surprise that “The Wolf of Wall Street” or “American Hustle” placed high in the race. I mean, after all, both films were tailor-made to get little gold statues. More surprising where some of the other Best Picture nominations. “Her” was beloved by many critics but might have proved too idiosyncratic (Translation: insightful and relevant) for the Academy’s taste. Even if the film failed to place in many other categories, at least Oscar had the decency to nominate it. “Nebraska,” similarly, might have been too low-key. Both are a pleasant addition to the race even if both have zero chance of actually winning.

What about the genuine surprises? “Captain Philips” was well-liked but hardly unanimously loved. Its nomination isn’t hugely unexpected but I wouldn’t have been surprised to see it phased out in favor of something else. “Dallas Buyer’s Club,” like-wise, was well-liked without being widely praised. Given the Academy’s love of mediocrity, maybe that helped the film, as it showed up in several other categories. The biggest surprise of the best picture race is “Philomena,” one of those British pics that appeal most to old ladies. Either there are a lot of old ladies in the Academy’s voting pool or the Weinsteins made a big, fat push for their chatty, likable elderly-chick-flick. Probably both. Either way, that was a title I really didn’t expect to see on the list Thursday morning.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Even with nine films nominated, the clear leaders are obvious. It’s coming down to “Gravity” and “12 Years a Slave.” The space thriller might still win but the Academy is all about safe choices. And the historical drama is the safe choice. “12 Years a Slave” will take the gold.


BEST ACTOR:
The only surprises the leading man category yielded were who didn’t get nominated. Bruce Dern’s turn in “Nebraska” is exactly the kind of older-actor / late-career-resurgence that Oscar loves. By all accounts, it’s a good, personal performance. I’m rooting for him even if he’s unlikely to be the Academy’s top pick.

Chiwetel Ejiofor and Leonardo DiCaprio’s nomination were very expected. DiCaprio has long been an Academy favorite and his turn in “Wolf” was soundly praised. Ejiofor, whose name is destined to be mispronounced repeatedly over the next six weeks, was an early contender for the statue. Sometimes Oscar rewards unknown names over recognized stars. This year looks to be a battle of that sort as these two lead the race, in my opinion.

At least until the Shirtless One wander in and took home a Golden Globe. Not that the Globes matter but they sometimes point you in Oscar’s direction. Matthew McConaughey, after a career of shitty movies, broke out last year with an amazing performance in “Killer Joe.” Oscar didn’t recognize him for that movie but “Dallas Buyers Club,” a gay movie that’s not too gay, seems more their taste. McConaughey’s Southern charm and possibly brave pick of material might be the mix necessary to win him an Oscar.

So it’s a tight race. But you know who’s most defiantly not going to win? Christian Bale randomly scooped up a nomination that probably should have gone to Oscar Isaac, Phoenix, Hanks, or Redford. By all accounts, Bale dialed back his notorious intensity in “American Hustle” which makes his nod even more surprising. Considering he already has an Oscar and it’s a performance nobody has been talking about, Batman won’t win. I mean, probably. You shouldn’t take my word for it.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
My heart is rooting for Dern. My gut tells me this might finally be Leo’s year. While my brain says Chiwetel and the Artist Formally Known as the Shirtless One are the most likely winners. I honestly can’t make a clear prediction. 50/50 split between Ejiofor or McConaughey.


BEST ACTRESS:
Nothing about the Best Actress Nominations is surprising or interesting. The Academy continues to shower Meryl Streep with nominations even though she’s the last person in the world who needs them. Will the AMPAS just say “Fuck it!” again this year and throw the Award Streep's way? It could always happen but I deeply, sincerely hope it doesn’t. Mostly because I don’t want to punch multiple holes in my wall.

You could say much the same about Judi Dench, another widely beloved actress who doesn’t have to do much to get nominated. “Philomena” seems to be considered a stronger role from her. Uninspired competition and the Academy’s obvious love of the film means she too might win on the “Fuck it!” factor.

Sandra Bullock is a spawn from a demon-gut-uterus and was also just an audience surrogate in “Gravity.” Granted, it was probably the best performance from an actress who has never tested herself on any level before. America’s Sweetheart, my ass. “Gravity” is certain to take home some awards on March 2nd but I don’t think Sandy will be packing any of them.

So the race really comes down to two names. Cate Blanchett previously won for her turn as Katherine Hepburn in “The Aviator” but that was in the Supporting Category so it might as well not matter. Working with Woody Allen has brought actresses the gold before and “Blue Jasmine” seems to be an intense, strong performance for her.

However, my money’s on the Oscar-less woman. And it’s for all the wrong reasons. Amy Adams has been nominated repeatedly over the years without winning. Her turn in “American Hustle” is, by most accounts, nothing special. Adams will win strictly because it’s her time. Oscar likes her, she’s never won, competition is weak this year, and Amy has the most hype. These are the factors that decide winners, not talent.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Amy Adams for “American Hustle.”


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Best Supporting Actor is one of the strongest categories this year. With one exception anyway. Why the fuck does Jonah Hill keep getting nominated? I mean, he’s not a bad guy. He seems personable enough and has given likable performances in past films. But why this fat pudgy guy? Shit, if Oscar wanted to recognize one of Seth Rogan’s friends, why not James Franco in “Spring Breakers?” That performance was at least memorable.

Michael Fassbender probably isn’t bad in “12 Years a Slave.” Yet I suspect his nod here is to make up for his snub last year, for “Shame,” his previous collaboration with director Steve McQueen. Will the “make-up” factor be enough to win him the statue? Probably not. I have no doubt Fassbender will win an Oscar eventually but I don’t think it’ll be this year.

I keep saying this. The winner will be one of two people this year. Barkhad Abdi might be the best thing about “Captain Philips” and already has a few awards to his credit. While the film was not as well received by Oscar as expected, that sort of thing doesn’t always matter when it comes to the Supporting category.

Abdi might still get it but Jared Leto in “Dallas Buyers Club” seems the likelier choice. He plays a trans-person dying of HIV. Gee whiz, that’s some serious Oscar-bait there. Leto too is riding a strong wave of buzz into the ceremony. His career full of uninspired and forgettable movies is the strongest detriment in his favor. But then again, that didn’t hurt Monique and even “Chapter 27” wasn’t as shitty as “Phat Girlz.” Leto seems the prime choice in this category.

Also, Bradley Cooper was nominated. Nobody gives a shit.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Jared Leto.


BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
I’ve probably made it clear that, in my opinion, awards are won mostly because of hype, not talent. Best Supporting Actress is a surprisingly hypeless category this year. Sally Hawkins and Lupita Nyong’o have never received nods before and their names weren’t mentioned much in the run-up to the announcements. I’m a fan of Hawkins from her turn in “Happy-Go-Lucky” and I wish her all the luck. However, her winning would be a major surprise.

June Squibb is a character actress who has kicked around for years. Her brassy performance in “Nebraska” might be the most Academy-friendly of this lot. In another year, I'd say she’s the strongest contender. However, she has next-to-zero buzz behind her, making a potential win also very surprising.

For that matter, the only nominee here with any hype is America’s New Sweetheart. No, not Julia Roberts. Jesus Christ, I hope she doesn’t win. No, I’m talking about Jennifer Lawrence. I was an early supporter of Lawrence because of her incredible performance in “Winter’s Bone.” She has, subsequently, disappoint me with middling turns in populist shit like “The Hunger Games” series. Her performance in “American Hustle” is Big with a Capital B and you know Oscar loves that shit. Does she deserve to win? Probably not but America and the Academy voters love her. Will Lawrence join Luise Rainer and Katherine Hepburn in the club of actress to take home wins two years in a row? My gut is telling me yes. (My gut is sometimes wrong.)

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Jennifer Lawrence.


BEST DIRECTOR:
The Academy fucking loves David O. Russell, more-so then is perhaps healthy. The guy has been on a nomination streak over his last three films. However, Russell is not Martin Scorsese, a universally beloved cinematic auteur. The Academy didn’t even start liking Russell until he ditched personal, weirdly independent projects in favor of things adapted and crowd-pleasing. He’ll win some year, probably for something big and historically significant. But not this year.

The same goes for Scorsese who is unlikely to win for something as rowdy and ballsy as “The Wolf of Wall Street.” The Academy likes Alexander Payne too but “Nebraska” isn’t the kind of movie that wins best director awards.

Here we go again. Two names are vying for Best Director. “12 Years a Slave” is the Best Picture front-runner and Best Picture usually wins Best Director. In any other year, I’d say McQueen has this one in the bag. But this year brought “Gravity,” an astounding technical achievement. The real star of “Gravity” wasn’t Sandra Bullock but instead Alfonso Cuaron’s incredible composition. I guess Oscar might still wimp out and decide they’re afraid of even a moderately sci-fi story at the last minute. But if their heads aren’t completely up their asses, Cuaron will win. And their heads might be completely up their asses.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Alfonso Cuaron.


BEST WRITING:
“Her” definitely deserves to win something and its best luck is in the writing categories. Sadly, Spike Jonze’s sweepingly romantic and mature movie is probably too heady for the Academy. Woody Allen just won a few years ago, and many times before, so I don’t think his Oscar is entirely plausible here. Bob Nelson’s screenplay for “Nebraska” might be the dark horse here, a suitably indie project unlikely to take home any other award. Nobody is betting on “Dallas Buyers Club” as its odds are much better in the acting categories.

Sadly, that’s not always how the Academy works. “American Hustle” winning Best Picture is unlikely and the voters are clearly in love with that movie. So they’ll probably throw Russell a bone for his co-written screenplay here.

As for the Adapted category… A lot of people really loved “Before Midnight” but I don’t see it winning. “The Wolf of Wall Street” is the most “adapted” of the works, in the sense that it’s based off a best-selling book. That hype might lead it to a win. “Philomena’s” sudden push might do the same, especially since it won't pick up other awards. But the movie with the most hype is “12 Years a Slave.” A Best Picture juggernaut sometimes winds up plowing through the writing categories too. This is what I predict will happen. Both writing awards will go to movies that really aren’t that conceptually interesting. As is the way.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
I’m rooting for “Her” and “Before Midnight.” But “American Hustle” and “12 Years a Slave” will probably get it instead.


MUSIC:
I liked “Gravity” too. Yet the love that has greeted its score baffles me. It’s not really a score in the traditional sense but rather a collection of tension-raising sound effects. If a good score’s purpose is to power the film, then perhaps it is a great score. If a good score is meant to be listenable isolated from its source movie, I’d say it isn’t.

A score that is listenable is William Butler and Andy Koyama’s music for “Her.” It’s a score as swooning and evocative as the film that surrounds it. Sadly, I don’t see it winning just because the Academy is lame. John Williams’ work on “The Book Thief” is more personal and understated then you’d expect. Though I haven’t seen the movie yet, I suspect Alexander Dusplat’s personality filled score reflects "Philomena" quite well. Thomas Newman’s score for “Saving Mr. Banks” is bouncy, likable, and very commercial. Weirdly, that last factor might wind up robbing it. Since the Academy really doesn’t understand good music, “Gravity’s” cacophony of noise will likely take it. Pretty much any other choice would be preferable.

The most unexpected nomination of the day was the title song from “Alone Yet Not Alone,” a film that was on exactly zero radars. It’s a tiny, faith-based historical drama that got a qualifying run somewhere in the country last year. No, I haven’t heard of it. I have heard the song which is pretty but unexceptional, the female singer thankfully not going too over the top with the vocals. I don’t know why it got nominated. (UPDATE: It got nominated because the writer called everyone up and told them to vote for it.)

“The Moon Song” from “Her” is lovely, a rather perfect, low-key love song that I would gladly dance to at a wedding. Low-key isn’t the kind of thing that wins Best Song though. It’s also not a word you would use to describe “Ordinary Love,” U2’s typically bombastic contribution to the otherwise un-nominated “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.” I don’t know why people keep falling for Bono’s whining vocals and overwrought lyrics.

The Academy passed over Pharrell Williams’ contributions to the first “Despicable Me” but did single out “Happy,” an upbeat number from the sequel. It’s a fun song with a chorus you can’t help but sing along too. It won’t win though because this is the season of “Frozen.” The stand-out number “Let It Go” has been tearing up the pop charts, not to mention spawning countless YouTube covers. The music in “Frozen” was overly goofy and disposable but “Let It Go” was clearly the strongest number, a powerful song bound to play at a few high school graduations. Disney knows that and has been pushing it like crazy these past two months. It’ll win. Hopefully Idina Menzel will perform at the ceremony instead of Demo Lovato.


OTHER FILM CATEGORIES:
Oscar continues to show little patience for Pixar’s sequels, save a “Toy Story 3” here and there. “Monsters University” was surprisingly snubbed, making room for a small film like “Ernest & Celestine” and “The Croods,” a film that very few people seem passionate about. “Despicable Me 2” made a lot of money but, seeing as how its obviously weaker then its predecessor, I don’t foresee a win. If “The Wind Rises” is indeed Miyazaki’s final film, the Academy might give it the award just based on that. Yet the film has proved divisive and somewhat difficult. Even if “Frozen” wasn’t as good as “Tangled” or “Wreck-It Ralph,” it’s overwhelming popularity and mass appeal looks to bringing it gold.

“The Act of Killing” was a documentary beloved by many this year, even outranking some fictional films on a few list. It appears to be the top choice here, even if “Cutie and the Boxer” and “The Square” have dug up some solid buzz. Mutual snubs for “Blackfish” and “Leviathan” proves that the Academy doesn’t care about ocean people.

I’ll admit to being totally ignorant about the foreign film selection. “The Hunt” earned some okay hype earlier in the year, so I guess that’s might pick? At first, I was surprised “Blue is the Warmest Color,” the most buzz-about foreign film of the year, didn’t get nominated. In retrospect though, it isn’t shocking that France chose not to submit such a controversial film as their pick.


MISC.:
 I fully expect “Gravity” to tear through the technical categories. I would say Editing, the Sounds: Mixing and Editing, and Special Effects are in the bag. Maybe Cinematography too, even if a film widely shot on green screen probably shouldn’t be the winner in that category. (“Nebraska” is my other choice.) Production Design will probably go to “12 Years a Slave,” Costume Design too.

Finally, what the fuck, Oscar? Would it kill you to nominate some friggin’ genre movies in the Best Make-Up category? Oh, I’m sure “Jackass Presents Bad Grandpa” features some fine make-up effects. But, shit, wasn’t there some movie where people were turned into aliens or monsters or something? Jesus. Really? “Dallas Buyers Club” and “The Lone Ranger” were your picks for best Make-up of the year? Christ.

-

January has proven a surprisingly busy month, which is why updates have been a bit slow around here. My Quentin Tarantino Director Report Card will resume tomorrow and play out throughout the rest of the month. Two Bangers n’ Mash episodes should be coming within the next weeks as well.

But after that? Oscar season rolls out in earnest, kiddos. I’ve got a pile of movies I plan on watching in February. By the time of the actual award show on March 2nd, I will be much more informed about the films nominated. On that night, my annual Oscar Live-Blog will commence where I will drunkenly yell over Ellen DeGeneres’ good nature jokes and whatever technical gaffs and controversies spring up that night. Catch you on the flip-side, film fans. 

Director Report Card: Quentin Tarantino (1995)

3. Four Rooms
Segment: The Man from Hollywood

“Four Rooms” was probably one of the biggest disappointments of nineties cinema. The Weinsteins had rounded up some of their best indie talent, the filmmakers that had made their studio’s name. Quentin Tarantino was right off the massive success of “Pulp Fiction,” Allison Anders had made waves with “Gas, Food Lodging,” while Robert Rodriguez had already made his transition from homemade tinkerer to action hit maker. So there was really no excuse for “Four Rooms” to be as bad as it is. Anders’ opening segment is an excruciatingly flat, borderline misogynistic dirty joke that drags on forever. Alexandre Rockwell’s second segment builds some okay energy but is hampered by a mean-spirited tone. Things pick up a bit with Rodriguez’ cartoonish “The Misbehavers,” which plays like something of an R-rated prequel to “Spy Kids.” Even the movie’s animated open credits gets thing off on a bad start, seeming hopelessly hokey. By the time Tarantino’s segments rolls around at the hour and five minutes point, the audience has been left in a very dire state. Amazingly, QT manages to turn things around in the last act, making “Four Rooms” watchable for the first time. Which isn’t to say that “The Man from Hollywood” is a masterpiece on the level of the filmmaker’s previous works. It’s completely minor but funny and energetic. 

The exact point where Tarantino takes over the film is immediately obvious. Tim Roth’s frantic bellhop, having the worse New Years of his life, jumps on the phone with his boss. Perhaps expecting that audiences would skip the first three segments, the characters take the time to recount the events of the film up to that point. However, there’s something different. There’s an energy to the dialogue, the words packed with an absurd comic quality. Roth screams profanity, at the end of his rope, while a confused, stoned, calm woman listens patiently, somewhat incoherently, on the other end. The characters speak in long, rambling monologues, full of amusing, unrelated anecdotes. An expert has stepped in and taken over a sinking ship, somehow pulling it out of the ocean.

The proper story of “The Man from Hollywood” shows Tarantino (probably) poking fun at himself. Ted the Bellhop enters the penthouse of the hotel, greeted by Chester Burns, played by the director himself, a fast talking, manic filmmaker just coming off his first big hit. Burns casually drops references to old cinema, things like “Quadrophenia” and “The Bellboy.” (This is in addition to previous call-outs to Cannon films and the NES “Rambo” game.) Tarantino is playing himself, basically, and only exaggerating slightly, like when he goes ballistic over flat Cristal or when you find out that his big hit was something called “The Wacky Detective.” Eventually, the film’s purpose reveals itself: An extended reference to “The Alfred Hitchcock Presents” episode “Man from the South.”

The segment is directed mostly in DePalma-style long takes, Tarantino frequently speaking directly to the camera. Slow pans and quick-cutting close-ups break up the shots, like profane interjections break up the dialogue. The lines are frequently ridiculous, especially those coming from an uncredited Bruce Willis and Paul Calderon, both of whom appear as drunk as their characters. The long shots end when Tarantino speaks directly into the camera again, with a minute-long monologue about life and the choices one makes. It’s all one long build-up to a pitch perfect joke, a blunt, swift dismissal of all the nuttiness that came before. As far as Shaggy Dog stories go, it’s a fairly brilliant one. The reaction runs into the credits, manic yet deadpan, scored to the film’s upbeat, sashaying theme song.

Am I telling you to skip the first hour of “Four Rooms” and go directly to the final sequence? I would never recommend such a thing but will point out that “The Man from Hollywood” is probably available on various internet websites and can be appreciated without seeing the rest of the film. In other words, yeah, do that. It’s inessential and pretty silly but an amusing twenty minutes.
[The Man from Hollywood: B+, Four Rooms: C-]

Director Report Card: Quentin Tarantino (1994)

2. Pulp Fiction

I wasn’t aware enough of cinema in 1994 to recognize the effect “Pulp Fiction” had on wider popular culture. I saw the film’s instantly iconic poster in video stores and on rental shelves. I heard “Misirlou” on the radio and television, not really understanding its relevance. Cut me some slack, I was six. Even though I wasn’t in the theaters in ‘94, I can imagine the affect the film had on its first-time viewers. When I did see the movie on video years later, without exaggeration, it changed my life. To this day, it remains one of my all-time favorite movies and completely redefined the way I experience film.

Compared to “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction” is a very different experience. The direction is more self-assured, more stylized. There is an absurd comic perversity to the film’s entire run time, imbuing even its darkest moments with a certain lightness. It was a bold artistic statement from young Tarantino, insuring that every film he made in the future would take place in this particular universe, one influenced by old movies and cheap dime novels. “Reservoir Dogs” was a gritty crime flick, a first-timer proving what he could do. Right from its surf-rock assisted opening credits, the difference is clear. “Pulp Fiction” is pure rock n’ roll.

The themes of “Reservoir Dogs” continue to evolve. The director still sets his stories in the world of low-lives, hitmen and mob bosses. Unlike the vulgar thugs of his first features, you want to spend time with the characters of “Pulp Fiction.” They’re likable and funny. Once again, the director starts his scenes before most screenwriters would. We don’t open on the hitmen making their hit. We open on them in their car, having a meandering conversation about life in Amsterdam, television, and the morality of foot rubs. We see the thought process that leads to diner stick-up. The dialogue has a lyrical pace to it but is natural. These aren’t just criminals, they are human beings with inner lives and opinions.

Tarantino continues to subvert Hollywood’s tendency to paint criminals in a glamorous light. Yeah, Vince and Jules are fun to hang around, maybe even cool. Once they’re decked out in volleyball t-shirts or covered with blood, they’re harder to take seriously. Marsellus Wallace is a badass gang lord but has his macho bravado taken down rather drastically by the story’s event. Vince’s drug rush certainly makes getting high look smooth and exciting. But a later OD is anything but glamorous. The film shows the director’s interest developing, handling some of the same subjects but in a more confident fashion.   

“Pulp Fiction,” thematically speaking, has the director looking towards fate, chance, and the ability to change. Butch and Marsellus aren’t on good ground. However, through pure chance, the two are thrown together in a way that will change both of their lives. How else do you explain Marsellus stepping out of that doughnut shop just as Butch happens to be driving across? Why would the pawn shop they stumble into be home to some misplaced “Deliverance”-style hillbilly depravity? It’s not sloppy writing, it’s intentional. The theme becomes obvious during the third chapter. For unexplained reasons, Jules and Vince are saved from an onslaught of bullets. Like the doughnuts or the Gimp, this happens for a reason. Jules is obviously affected by chance’s hand, even if Vince refuses to acknowledge it. Why would the hitmen just happen to be in the diner when a pair of petty thieves decide to rob it? Honey Bunny and Pumpkin are left changed by the encounter too. Butch could have left Marsellus to die but he made the choice to save him instead. Lance didn’t have balloons, so Mia ODed, so Vince saved her, changing both’s viewpoints. The movie’s themes are summed up by the mysterious suitcase. The “what” of fate remains elusive but the “why” is reflected in the results. Things happen for a reason and that reason is usually because something needs to change.

Sometime between “Reservoir Dogs” came out and “Pulp Fiction” started filming, it’s clear Quentin got into French New Wave Cinema pretty seriously. He’s talked before about the influence Godard had on his filmmaking. This becomes clear in the film’s visual presentation. The camera is frequently placed in unexpected places. Lance reclines on the bed, speaking, his head slipping off-screen, his face visible reflected in a mirror. We focus on the back of Vince and Jules’ heads or Mia’s feet, their dialogue speaking for themselves. The long shot focusing on Vince and Jules walking through the apartment building mirrors their winding conversation. The long shot in Jack Rabbit’s Slim establishes the loose, rock n’ roll tone of the following scene. The shaky handheld of “Reservoir Dogs” even makes a brief reprise during the diner stand-off. Tarantino the Developing Stylist is most evident during an occasional burst of slow-motion or smooth, music-video-style close-ups. The more elevated direction matches the more exaggerated story.

The non-linear story constructions was present in “Reservoir Dogs” but the progression was more clear. The A-story moved forward as expected while flashbacks revealed important information. “Pulp Fiction” takes this structure far further. The segments aren’t meant to play out like chapters in a novel but instead like separate entries in a short story collection. The stories are separate because of their conflicting tones. “Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife” is a charming, romantic comedy that evolves into an intense thriller. “The Gold Watch” is more character-oriented before a blackly comedic streak develops. “The Bonnie Situation” is pure dark comedy. The mixed-up structure also causes the viewer to focus more on the characters’ personalities, their roles in each segment. The movie isn’t about pure plot. Instead, it flows poetically, like a piece of music. 

The music reinforces the film’s tone while also, occasionally, slyly comment on the film’s events. The surf-rock soundtrack propels the film, providing a fierce energy, from the unmistakable power chords of Dick Dale to the relaxed, washing wave pace of “Surf Rider,” a perfect note to take the film out on. Sometimes the lyrics call out the character’s actions. “Let’s Stay Together” plays as Marsellus tries to force Butch to go along with his plan. “Son of a Preacher Man” plays as Vincent meets Mia for the first time, making it clear that, despite his good intentions, his thoughts are less then pure. As Vince and Mia dance to Chuck Berry’s “You Never Can Tell,” they come off like a married couple having a very unconventional first dance. Even the instrumental numbers interact with the story’s action, “Comanche” providing a rowdy, upbeat soundtrack while Marsellus is brutally rape, criticizing the scene as darkly funny. You might think Tarantino picks these old songs just because he likes them but there’s a method behind his rabid fanboy antics.

While the script and director provided the movie with a unique identity, the cast ultimately holds the picture together. The film gave John Travolta his second chance. The confident star of “Saturday Night Fever” and “Welcome Back, Kotter” is nowhere to be seen in Vincent Vega. His greasy hair, slight paunch, and sweaty, nervous demeanor stand in contrast to the character’s and the actor’s macho persona. Considering Travolta would squander his career revival, the actor himself apparently wasn’t aware that Vega’s tough guy approach is strictly ironic. Give him shit; he probably deserves it; but Travolta is energizing in the part. His established pop culture cred winds up adding extra layers to his scene with Lance or the dance number. Travolta’s chemistry with Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman makes many scenes great.

The movie made Jackson a star. While he’s been content to phone it in lately, Jackson is incredible here. His comedic timing, the F-bombs landing like big exclamation points, winds up being most memorable. The actor’s trademark, wide-eyed intensity suits him well during his infamous, early monologue. However, it’s a later monologue that’s ultimately more impressive. The Bible quote might actually be from a Sonny Chiba movie but Jules reads into it like its scripture. There’s an honesty to Jackson’s delivery. Given his own sordid history, perhaps Sam Jackson was talking about his own second chance while acting out Jules’. Uma, meanwhile, slings Tarantino’s dialogue more confidently then anyone else. Her own quick-wit is a perfect match for the director’s trademark, lightening-fast words. It doesn’t hurt that she’s utterly beautiful, sensuality and seduction dripping from every word. Of course, that’s a persona too, and Mia Wallace winds up having a deeply human, vulnerable side of her own.

Bruce Willis is another guy who just fucking phones it anymore. Here, he is at his most charming. Butch might be prone to violent outburst and has no problem killing people but is, ultimately, a good man. His scenes with Fabienne reveals the character’s big, gooey heart. The two have an effortless, romantic back-and-forth. It’s easy to see why Willis was once a sex symbol, combining a sweetness with a tough guy exterior. Maria de Medeiros plays her part like a live-action Betty Boop, all flirty come-on and cutey-pie accent. The supporting cast is mostly filled out with expert characters doing their thing. Ving Rhames’ career would mostly be defined by Marsellus Wallace’s gangster attitude, even if his smaller, softer moments are more endearing. Christopher Walken’s one scene performance depends entirely upon the actor’s established persona, as only Walken could imbue such a ridiculous story with a unique mixture of pathos and humor. Angela Jones’ career peaked with Esmarelda Villalobos which is a shame as she’s completely electrifying. The only character in the film who actually keeps his cool, his awesomeness never being deconstructed, is Harvey Kietel’s Winston Wolf. Mr. Wolf is a mysterious man who is always in control and has got everything figured out. Even Tarantino’s acting is tolerable even if the director gives himself some of the film’s funniest dialogue.

Clearly, I love “Pulp Fiction.” The movie stands above its rip-offs and would-be copies because of its energy, its performances, and its deeper subtext. However, there’s one moment that I can’t defend. When first watching the movie as a teenager, I thought Jack Rabbit’s Slim seemed like a cool place. And I suppose it still is. But, damn, that shit is cheesy. The movie is awash in references and rockabilly nostalgia. The call-outs never feel forced except when Vince and Mia step into that restaurant. Between the perfect production design, celebrity imitator waiters, the vintage posters on the wall, and the retro soundtrack, its all too cute. The rest of the movie remains cutting edge but that scene is badly dated.

If I go on much longer, I’ll probably start to sound like a real dork. Is “Pulp Fiction” the director’s best film? Confidently, yes. Is it one of the best films ever made? I’m really not one to judge but it probably deserves a place somewhere in the top one hundred. Is it my personal favorite film? There are others I like a whole bunch but this one always seems to come out on top. Anybody else want to go get some burgers? [Grade: A+]   

Director Report Card: Quentin Tarantino (1992)

It's a story a lot of film nerds who grew up in the nineties probably have. I liked movies well enough, probably knew more about them your average video store customer. However, one fateful evening, I rented "Pulp Fiction" and suddenly I became a film fanatic. I drew up lists of everything I wanted to see, starting writing reviews, collecting as much obscure trivia about my favorite movies as possible. I probably would have become a movie dork anyway but Quentin Tarantino's seminal classic sped that transformation along. It had that affect on plenty of people I imagine. Why? The director infuses everyone of his films with his love of the media. He's the film lover's filmmaker. I've been meaning to review his work for years now so, ramblers, let's get ramblin'.


1. Reservoir Dogs

The opening scene of “Reservoir Dogs” is an establishing moments. Eight guys sit around a table in a diner, talking about unimportant bullshit. The way the individuals act in this moment foreshadows how they will act throughout the film. Mr. Pink doesn’t tip because he only watches out for himself. Even when the others insist, he refuses to tip, at the peril of throwing the whole table into an argument. Mr. Blonde is coolly, coldly argumentative. Mr. Orange sits back and observes, watching, listening. Mr. Brown rambles on about a bunch of unimportant bullshit because he’s not important. Mr. White is something of the mediator and the clear leader. Even his responsibility to the group is sidelined by his compassion for the waitresses. Joe, despite his slightly eccentric attitude, is still obviously in control, even Mr. White kowtowing to him. It’s a quick way to familiarize the audience with a large cast.

The diner scene was also an establishing moment for “Reservoir Dogs’” writer/director. In any other crime movie, the thieves would be discussing their heist. In a Tarantino movie, they blab mindlessly about pop culture. The director’s distinctive, immediately recognizable style was quickly emulated by a number of inferior filmmakers. Most would-be Tarantinos adapted the director’s highly stylized dialogue, the references to pre-existing pop culture both within the text and outside it. They saw the dudes in suits and sunglasses, walking in slow-motion to seventies pop music. The violence was influential too. Gun shots blow huge bloody holes, the bright red blood extra visible on white shirts. Mr. Orange spends nearly the entire film stewing in a puddle of his own blood. Most infamously, the cool, in both meanings of the word, sadism displayed by Mr. Blonde was instantly a favorite of high school cinephiles.

However, the imitators missed the intent behind the violence. Yes, “Reservoir Dogs” opens with the guys looking like a bunch of slick badasses, strolling along to “Little Green Backs.” But the next scene is Mr. Orange screaming in agony, bleeding to death in the back of a car. Not so cool now, are they? There’s no camaraderie among the thieves. Once back at the warehouse, they start to argue and bicker. The image of relaxed coolness breaks down immediately, except among Mr. Blonde, the unrepentant psychopath. Ultimately, there’s no honor among thieves. At least most of them. Mr. White is the only one with a conscious, the only person concerned about the injured Mr. Orange. And where does that concern get him in the end? Shot in the heart. The message is clear. Crime doesn’t pay, kids.

 “Reservoir Dogs” is a stylish film, from its word salad title on down. Most discussions focus on Tarantino’s writing and dialogue. This frequently overshadows the director’s visual sense. The visual construction is unobtrusively designed. The most memorable images make good use of the wide lens. The image of a bloody body in the center of a wide, flat room is highly striking, as are the director’s tense close-ups or slow zooms. My favorite moment involves Mr. White and Mr. Pink discussing the situation, the camera watching from the hallway, only Keitel visible from around the corner. During calmer moments, the slow pan around a room is employed. However, action beats are characterized by jangly, nervous handheld cinematography. Later on, the slow pans ramp up the intensity of the moments. It’s relatively subtle. Frequently, you become so absorbed in the characters that you don’t even notice the visual design. As his career went on, Tarantino’s direction would evolve into something highly stylish. For his first feature, the shooting is effectively low-key.

Of course, the screenplay is a hugely important factor. Tarantino has always employed a novel-like structure. The film plays out in clear chapters. There’s that introductory scene, not at the story’s start but instead designed to set the tone. Keeping the heist off-scene is an act of cinematic slight-of-hand. The movie’s not about that, after all, but the breakdown following. The story cuts around further, devoting time to each really important character’s background. We come back to the story after each bit, our understanding of the situation deepened. It’s easy to see, if this was a book, where each chapter break would occur. The writing keeps the audience involved, drawling us deeper into the film’s world.

Probably none of the director’s trademarks had been more pilfered then his immediately apparent dialogue. None of the writing is expositionary. There’s no lazy, boring dialogue here. There’s a musical rhythm to the words, making it funny and memorable. The ways the characters talk inform their personalities, the individuals having personal quirks. Like real people, they tell personal stories, meandering anecdotes.

“Musical” is an apt descriptor since Tarantino’s use of music is hugely famous as well, often talking back and forth with the dialogue. The words of “Stuck in the Middle with You” humorously plead for help while Officer Nash screams in agony. The irrelevance of the song underscores Mr. Blonde’s disinterest in his victim’s pain. The ridiculous “Ooh-ga-chucka” of “Stuck on a Feeling” seems to hint at the tribal, communal bonding the guys undergo while sitting in their car. Finally, cutting from the violent ending to the upbeat tomfoolery of Harry Nilsson’s “Cocoanut” is a sarcastic, sick joke. No call to the doctor is going to make these guys feel better.

Quentin Tarantino is sometimes accused of being cinema’s biggest plagiarist. I haven’t seen “City on Fire” yet but supposedly the similarities are damning. There’s no denying the influence Hong Kong’s Heroic Bloodshed cinema had on the director’s treatment of on-screen violence. This is most obvious in the scene where Mr. White casually blasts through two cops. The ear slicing scene is clearly a quote from the original “Django.” The color based code names are straight out of “The Taking of Pelham 123.” A straight razor pulled from a boot is pulled from “Cruising.” A conversation in a mirror blatantly recalls “Taxi Driver.” Stuff like “Get Christie Love,” “The Lost Boys” and “Fantastic Four” comic books are name-dropped. Maybe QT is the most successful rip-off artist in film history. I, personally, like to think of him as a hip-hop DJ, remixing familiar or obscure references into something new and energizing. Maybe my opinion will change as I consume more of the movies that have "influenced" him. Come back in ten years and ask me again.

Before Harvey Keitel came on board as star and director, Tarantino had planned on producing the film with his own money, casting himself and friends as major characters. While it’s interesting to imagine what that version of “Reservoir Dogs” would look like, I’m real glad Harvey stepped in. (Especially since Quentin’s acting is, let's be kind, best taken in small doses.)  The cast is dynamite, of course, a large reason for the film’s appeal. Keitel gives an excellent performance, playing Mr. White as something like the gangster equivalent of a ronin, a deeply principled man operating in a world without principals. His ritualized murder-suicide at the end makes them even more obvious. Steve Buscemi had kicked around as a character actor for years, and probably still would have gotten famous eventually, but there’s no doubt Mr. Pink was a star-making role for him. The sardonic, rat-like character was a perfect fit for the actor’s charm. Pink’s inherent distrust of the others is obvious in his name. He’s the only one of the central quartet whose real name we never learn. Michael Madsen, too, had shown up in supporting roles here and there before Mr. Blonde doomed him to a lifetime of playing psychos and thugs. It’s a good performance though. Madsen never mistaking Blonde’s sociopathy for legit coolness. Mr. Orange’s character development, involving memorizing a script, is a weirdly meta element, Tim Roth acting as someone acting. Lawrence Tierney brought all of his gravelly charm to his small role while Chris Penn was similarly well-cast as Tierney’s boot-licking son. Of course, you can’t overlook Steven Wright’s running commentary as the K-Billy DJ. Wright’s trademark dry wryness is well-suited to the part.

My exposure to “Reservoir Dogs” came after “Pulp Fiction” changed my life. For years, I considered the director’s premier as a little overrated, better taken as an experiment then a real-deal movie. My opinion has grown over the years, the movie’s depth revealing itself. There’s still one scene I really don’t like though. I get that Vic Vega and Nice Guy Eddie aren’t suppose to be likable. However, the macho dialogue during their scene together can be hard to take. It’s not just because of the casual racism and homophobia. More-so because it’s obnoxious and goes on for way too long. That’s just one of a few scenes that drag slightly. The flashback scenes should have all been like Mr. White’s. Packed with the writer’s rambling, natural dialogue while still being to the point.

“Reservoir Dogs” is a pretty good movie. Like many of the director’s efforts, it operates within the rules of the crime-film genre while constantly subverting and playing with audience’s expectations. It’s not great pulp fiction but it is good pulp fiction. It’s not surprising the film would launch its director into the stratosphere. [Grade: B+]

2014 Film Preview

2014 has barely started and has already been overshadowed by the next year. If you follow any of the “entertainment news” websites, they’re all abuzz with talk about “Batman / Superman,” “Star Wars: Episode VII,” “The Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Jurassic World,” “Tomorrowland,” "Terminator 5," on and on. All of these are 2015 releases. The months of mindless speculation about films that haven’t even started filming yet makes it difficult to get excited about anything.

Amidst the endless blog-o-sphere chatter, you have to remember that the films themselves, the combined efforts of talented directors, writers, and actors, are the reason we all got into this hobby in the first place. Turns out, there are plenty of things worth getting excited about in 2014. Both tiny indies and mega-budget would-be blockbusters hold promise. How many of these films will top my year-end countdown? It’s hard to say. Until then, let’s look ahead with enthusiasm, hoping to see something special up on the big screen.

The Top Ten Most Anticipated Films of 2014:

1. All Cheerleaders Die

Of all the filmmakers I follow, I most look forward to Lucky McKee’s new films. “May” remains an all-time favorite and “The Woman” proved he still has it. Working in the much maligned horror genre, McKee makes highly personal, character-oriented films that comment on deeper issues while still delivering the grisly thrills horror fans expect.

His latest release, “All Cheerleaders Die,” is actually a remake of his very first feature. The shot-on-video original was an in-joke filled, goofy horror-comedy that still sneaked in feminist social commentary under the Karo-syrup stained zombies. It was fun but deeply unpolished. The director returning to that material, far more experience in hand, is exciting for a few reasons. McKee’s films usually have a hint of dark comedy to them and seeing him embrace that goofy side is awfully promising. Actually setting the story in a high school this time presents far more opportunity for comment on the film’s themes and ideas. Playing up the witchcraft and undead revenge angle more will also help distinguish this from the countless zombie flicks that have shuffled on to DVD over the last decade. The festival reviews have been somewhat underwhelming but this doesn’t deter me, as the director’s work is usually divisive. McKee has never connected with a mainstream audience before and I think he’s given up on that by this point. Which is a-okay with me, as long as he keeps making beautiful films for his fans and himself.

2. Godzilla

Hollywood was not exactly kind to Japan’s king of the monsters last time he was around these parts. My concerns about the latest, big-budget take on the iconic kaiju don’t have much to do with any lingering fallout from Roland Emmerich’s decade-old stinker. Instead, I’m worry that “Godzilla” will be just another big budget disaster movie, another film full of faceless extras running from indistinct CGI clouds of falling rubble, all too willing to tread on 9/11 imagery for cheap thrills.

There seems to be people who love the rubber-suited monster behind the camera on this one, which gives me a lot of hope. From what we’ve seen of him, the new Godzilla design updates the creature for modern sensibilities while remaining faithful to his established look. The trailer focuses on Godzilla’s massive scale and raw destructive power, giving hints that this will be more horror then popcorn muncher. More importantly, director Gareth Edwards seems to be returning a political subtext to the monster, recalling the 1954 original. This shouldn’t exactly be surprising, considering the director’s first feature, “Monsters,” (which is getting an unlikely sequel this year, by the way) was an extended, sometimes obvious allegory about illegal immigration. Frank Darabont worked on the script and, while Darabont is largely overrated, the guy loves his monsters. It remains to be seen if what makes the Big G special will make it out of the Hollywood meat grinder intact but, at the very least, he seems to be in the right hands.

3. Guardians of the Galaxy

Marvel Studios has, thus far, done a good job of maintaining their filmmakers’ auteur sensibilities while establishing a studio brand and wide-reaching continuity across very different films. The movies have also made their Disney overseers a lot of money. With “Guardians of the Galaxy,” the studio might be asking too much of the public. This is a space-set action epic featuring talking cartoon raccoons and giant tree people. A lot of box officer prognosticator suspect this might be Marvel’s first big bomb.

I don’t really care about that. Honestly, I’m expecting it. James Gunn’s last two features have been brilliant but far too cultish for mainstream acceptance. While I’m not sure he’s a good fit for the mega-budget mode, he’s a great match with the loopy material. It’s those noncommercial qualities that threaten to make this far more interesting then anything else the studio’s put out. It’s not like any other movie this year is going to offer cartoon raccoons, a giant tree man, and a green-skinned space babe plowing through hordes of baddies. If, somehow, Marvel’s massive marketing blitz does get the film to connect with the mainstream crowd, Disney might have a new “Star Wars” before their new “Star Wars” actually gets made. Even if it doesn’t, I suspect we’ll still have an endearingly weird sci-fi spectacle.

4. The Double

Richard Ayoade is a massively talented entertainer, as a comic performer and a writer-director. I was a big fan of his first feature, “Submarine,” which successfully earned big laughs out of its neurotic teen protagonist. If the trailer is any indication “The Double,” his directoral follow-up, seems to be digging into even moodier, darker neurosis. The premise, of a man bested by his exact duplicate, has been told before. However, I trust Ayoade will mine new observations and some darkly dry laughs out of that set-up. And if shivering anxieties is what the director wants out of his lead actor, he’s found a good match in Jesse Eisenberg. And, hey, a supporting cast that features Mia Wasikowska, Wallace Shawn, “Submarine” stars Yasmin Paige, Craig Roberts, Noah Taylor, and “IT Crowd” buddy Chris O’Dowd just sweetens the deal.

5. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson only makes Wes Anderson movies. His sensibilities are so deeply his own that few have had the audacity to rip it off. While I’ve loved many of his films, sometimes the director’s commitment to that style has produced diminished returns. However, his previous picture, “Moonrise Kingdom,” was an excellent return to form, perhaps the best work of his career. This alone would probably be enough to get me excited for “The Grand Budapest Hotel.”

However, the movie has one of the best trailers I’ve seen in years. I think I laughed more in those two minutes then I did over the entirety of “The Darjeeling Limited.” The director seems to be homaging or parodying Agatha Christy locked-room mysteries, which is a fairly perfect match with his style. Anderson has wrangled together a typically excellent cast and I’m looking forward to seeing Ralph Finnes in a more comedic mode for once.

6. Birdman 

Most of the times, when I’m excited for a movie, it’s because of the director involved or the source material being adapted. Sometimes, however, the premise is enough to catch my attention. “Birdman” isn’t a big screen version of the old Hanna-Barbara cartoon. Instead, it’s about a washed-up actor, once famous for playing a superhero, attempting to put his life back together while the studios reboot his most iconic character.

That’s an amusing enough premise but then the director went the extra mile and got Michael Keaton to star in it. I’m too much of a hog for meta-text touches not to love that. Besides, Keaton has always been an underrated comedic performer. He’s more then backed up by the rest of the cast, featuring such fine people as Emma Stone and Edward Norton. If there’s any reason to be unsure about this one, it’s director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. He’s won plenty of accolades for his big important dramas but a comedy like this is a departure for him. I’m hopeful that this will be the good-nature ribbing the superhero genre deserves and not just the one it needs right now.

7. The Expendables 3

I can’t much defend my love of the Expendables. These films are guilty pleasures, not high art. As long as they remain as massively entertaining as the second film was, that’s okay. After the overly somber tone and incoherent direction of the first flick, the sequel found the perfect balance between big dumb action and corny in-jokes concerning the over-the-hill stars. This second sequel promises even more: More big dumb action, more over-the-hill stars, more corny in-jokes.

At first, Sly was loosing me on this one. The promise of Nic Cage and Jackie Chan joining the cast wound up falling through. To pile on the disappointment, then Bruce Willis dropped out. However, Stallone slowly lured me back. Wesley Snipes? Perfect. Mel Gibson as a pumped-up villain named Conrad Stonebrook? Awesome. Harrison Ford and Antonio Banderas? Aw man! Heck, even the addition of Kelsey Grammer is bizarre enough to get my blood pumping. Director Patrick Hughes has done good work in the past and will hopefully provide a smoother hand then either previous director. I know it’ll be stupid as fuck but who cares. Movies are about simple joys sometimes too.

8. Suburban Gothic

“Excision” was a quirky horror indie from 2012 that I sure did love a whole bunch. It marked Richard Bates Jr. as an up-and-coming genre auteur with a clear sensibility. At first, the premise of “Suburban Gothic” disappointed me a bit. The world certainly doesn’t need another low-budget comedy about a shy guy who can’t talk to girls. However, the more I turned that one-sentence logline over in my brain, the more intrigued I got. It’s a great title and Bates is the perfect filmmaker to play up the gothic side of suburbia. The guy knows how to balance chills with laughs and, hopefully, there will be enough horror here to distinguish this from the rest of the mumblecore glut. Kat Dennings has great comedic timing and this might be the project where she really gets to show off for the first time. Assuming she isn’t playing a broad MPDG. Even that would be more dignified then “2 Broke Girls.” All of this is assuming the movie doesn’t flat-out suck, of course.

9. Inherent Vice

Paul Thomas Anderson has yet to make a bad movie. He’s made three flat-out masterpieces and even his lesser flicks are still pretty good. No one has ever attempted a Thomas Pynchon adaptation before but, if anyone was going to pull it off, it’d be P.T. Anderson. Of course, it’s not like “Inherent Vice,” a quirky detective story, was Pynchon’s trickiest book. If anything, a genre project like this is a departure for both creative minds. This winds up making the film more exciting, as the idea of Anderson handling a quote-normal-unquote story, albeit one laced in Pynchon’s typical fetishes, is fairly tantalizing. As always, Anderson has thrown together a primo cast, including everyone from Joaquin Phoenix, Benicio del Toro, Jena Malone, and most intriguingly odd of all, Martin Short.

10. The Ten o’ Clock People

Back in the eighties, Tom Holland made some great horror pictures, including “Fright Night,” my all-time favorite vampire flick. Despite that, he never reached the fame or recognition of a John Carpenter or Wes Craven. He’s been semi-retired since 1996’s disastrous “Thinner.” “The Ten o’ Clock People,” his belated return to feature filmmaking, is also a Stephen King adaptation. The source story is a lot stronger then that Richard Bachman-penned novel. More importantly, Holland has collected together a solid cast. Rachel Nichols is lovely and underutilized, Jay Baruchel is talented enough, and Chris Sarandon is back too. An underrated filmmaker returning to adapt a Stephen King story that doesn’t totally suck along with some likable actors? Yeah, that’s enough to crack my top ten.


Other Upcoming Films of Note:


The Amazing Spider-Man 2
For a movie nobody asked for, “The Amazing Spider-Man” was a fairly enjoyable popcorn flick. A sequel minus the origin story baggage probably would have been a good time. Instead, this film has the baggage of Sony wanting to launch their own “Avengers.” So we’re getting at least three villains, at least two more sequels, and at least two spin-offs. That’s a bummer since I’d gladly watch Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in another one of these things.

Among the Living
Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury’s follow-up to their incendiary debut “Inside,” “Livid,” has still yet to see an official state-side release. However, their next film sounds even better. The premise involves a trio of young boys finding a captured women and a masked madman among an abandoned carnival. I personally hope that carnival setting plays a large role in the final film and that the directing duo hasn’t lost any intensity since their 2006 debut.

Barely Lethal
Teenage girl assassins have cropped up all over the pop culture landscape over these last few years with Hit-Girl, “Hanna,” and “Violet and Daisy.” This year is also bringing us the long-gestating anime adaptation “Kite,” which will presumably have way less underage rape in it. There’s been so many films of this nature that a parody, “Barely Lethal,” is now necessary. (Not entirely surprisingly, Samuel L. Jackson is in both films.) More surprising, the joke film sounds more interesting then any of the straight examples. Hailee Steinfeld has yet to find a place for her talent since “True Grit” but this one might be the ticket. Its premise of a teenage hit-girl attempting to adapt to high school sounds like the best parts of “Kick-Ass 2” stretch to feature length. Director Kyle Newman doesn't have the best track record but, eh, I'm willing to give him some leeway on this one.

Big Hero 6
For its first animated adaptation of a Marvel comic, Disney is going with relatively obscure material. “Big Hero 6,” the comic, was a goofy synthesis of Japan’s most endearing pop culture contributions. “Big Hero 6,” the movie, seems to be going in a vastly different direction, using the anime style as backdrop to an original story. I’m okay with this as Disney’s animation department has been on a role over the last few years. Sure, I wish it was cel animated but I’ll take what I can get.

Burying the Ex
Not many people saw Joe Dante’s long belated return to cinemas, “The Hole.” I bet this one, since its cast includes attractive established stars like Anton Yelchin and Ashley Greene, will reach a wider audience. The premise, of a murderous boyfriend unable to get rid of his persistently undead girlfriend, is cute though not a particularly good match for Dante’s style. Sadly, this is looking to be a paycheck for Dante, on the way to his fantastic sounding Roger Corman biopic.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier
While “Thor” and “The Avengers” overshadowed it, the first “Captain America” is still maybe my favorite of the Marvel movie lot. While I would have preferred more World War II era Natzi-bashing, this inevitable sequel is set in the modern day. The trailer was surprisingly gritty, marking Cap as the most reality-based of Marvel’s franchise. Hopefully, we’ll see HYDRA’s return and more of the Captain struggling against his government authorities.

Cold in July
Jim Mickle won fans with “Mulberry St.” and “Fangland.” But not me. I found both to be overrated bores. The director finally won me over with this past year with “We Are What We Are.” “Cold in July” seems to be ditching the more explicit horror elements while keeping the chilly, southern gothic atmosphere. The director seems an ideal pick to adapt Jon R. Lansdale’s novel and assembled a pretty good cast together to boot.

Dark Places
I’m disappointed in myself. My interest in this one dropped steeply after Christina Hendricks stopped playing the stripper. (At least we’ll still get to see her as a dominatrix in Ryan Gosling’s vanity project.) What direction this ends up going in will determine how much it holds my attention. A great film has still yet to be made about the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria and this probably isn’t it. I haven’t read the source novel but I can't escape this sinking feeling that this will be a forgettable thriller.. Still, along with Hendricks, Charlize Theron and Chloe Moretz are in the cast. Might these excellent actresses make the material more exciting?

Ex Machina
Screenwriter Alex Garland has done some good work, an occasional stinker like "Sunshine" aside. Considering the writer’s continued interest in somewhat gimmicky science fiction with a humanistic heart, it’s not surprising he’d pick a gimmicky sci-fi story as his directorial debut. The story of corporate retreats and beautiful robot girls could go in a number of directions. We don’t know if Garland can direct but this will probably still be more interesting then the “Logan’s Run” remake or “Halo” adaptation he’s attached to write.

Jupiter Ascending
The Wachowskis have yet to find a real hit since “The Matrix,” only high-profile bombs. Somebody keeps giving these madmen money though, which is great since they’re still making awesome movies. With “Jupiter Ascending,” the duo seem to be intentionally emulating their previous flicks. Canning Tatum roundhouse kicking dudes recalls “The Matrix,” the eye-popping visuals are out of “Speed Racer,” while Mila Kunis wearing a rose dress on the moon seems more akin to “Cloud Atlas.” It’s those stars that make me uncertain, as neither has proven particularly captivating to me. Hopefully, the brothers’ wacked-out vision will keep me interested.

The Last Days of Coney Island
Ralph Bakshi turned to Kickstarter to finally get this much-talked-about and long thought dead project fully funded. He succeeded though, considering Bakshi’s independent methods, it probably still won’t see release any time soon. If it does make it out in the near future, it’ll probably be the director’s final artistic statement, ideally recapturing his seventies hayday. I bet its better then “Cool World.”

Maggie
Arnold’s slow return to the big screen continues this year. I liked “The Last Stand,” loved “Escape Plan” and am even looking forward to the generically entitled “Sabotage.” The real Arnie flick to watch this year is “Maggie,” a zombie story co-starring Abigail Breslin. Originally conceived as a vehicle for Chloe Moretz, with a premise similar to low-budget Irish flick “Colin,” this has obviously transformed into a film wherein Arnold murders many zombies. This is alright since I love to watch Arnold murder things. Since zombie action flicks usually have huge body counts, this one will make for an awesome kill count video if nothing else.

Marble Hornets
This appears to be the year where the Slender Man, the internet’s boogieman, breaks into the mainstream. Several true indie projects, like the long-delayed “Entity” or recently lensed “Slender Man,” have yet to reach theater screens. It’s not surprising that the studio-sanctioned feature version of groundbreaking internet series “Marble Hornets” is likely to get there first. None of the Youtube version’s cast or crew is involved which dampens my interest. The screenwriter at least has “Splinter” on his resume while the director only has second-unit work on poopy Lionsgate flicks to go on. But, hey, Doug Jones as the Operator, that’s some fine castin’ there.

Noah
When I found that Darren Aronofsky was directing a Biblical epic, one of several this year, I was surprised and confused. How was Aronofsky going to Aronofsky up such well-trodden material while within the studio system, no less? Then reports of test audiences fleeing the screenings in confusion, frustration, and fear surfaced. Ah, that’s how Aronofsky is going to Aronofsky this up. With psychedelic visions and giant multi-armed angels. Even with a mumbly-mouthed Russell Crowe in the lead, the cast is aces. This will probably be the first Biblical epic I see in the theaters since, uh, “Prince of Egypt.” And if anyone’s going to keep the drunken, naked dancing in the Noah story, it’s Aronofsky.

The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Could this be a horror remake that actually sounds sort of interesting? The original is a good candidate for a remake, since the great premise is sometimes hampered by the execution. Smartly, this one is dropping the docu-drama angle, which would never fly in today’s megaplexes, and seems to be playing out more like a sequel. And what’s this about a meta angle, with the killings taking place at a screening of the original film? The cast features great character actors like Edward Herrmann, Veronica Cartwright, and the late Ed Lauter. The creative team have mostly done episodes of “American Horror Story” before which means this will be pretty look at and possibly full of annoying, distracting subplots.

X-Men: Days of Future Past
“Days of Future Past” has much the same problem as “Amazing Spider-Man 2." Both films seem to be loading up with as many characters as possible. There are a few important differences though. This is the follow-up to the excellent "X-Men: First Class," with most everyone returning, including probably-too-famous-for-this-now Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence. Secondly, this appears to be the conclusion to the series that Bryan Singer had originally planned, retconing away the widely loathed third entry. (Though it's keeping the good parts, like Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde.) The script is based off a classic, beloved storyline. The trailer seems to indicate that this will be an X-movie with an epic scope, something we haven't quite gotten before. Lastly: Sentinels. Finally. How long have we been waiting to see those on screen? Assuming this isn't a jumbled mess with too many characters, this could very well be the X-Men movie we've all been waiting for. 

-

I'm not quite done yet! Because this blog entry didn't have enough links, here's some more. (That makes a total of 104, in case your were curious.) Here's some other stuff of interest that still aren't interesting enough for me to write a paragraph about them! Hope you had a good New Year! 

The ABCs of Death 2, The Bag Man, Big Eyes, The Boxtrolls, Clown, Cooties, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Dead Snow: Red vs. Dead, Dracula Untold, Eliza Graves, Everly, A Field in England, Final Girl, Horns, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar, Map to the Stars, Muppets Most Wanted, Not Safe for Work, Nymphomaniac, Patrick, Premature, The Raid 2: Berandal, Return to Nuke ‘em High, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, The Sacrament, The Smell of Us, Snowpiercer, Transcendence, Under the Skin, Venus in Fur, Welcome to New York, Wolf Creek 2, and The Zero Theorem.