Tag: Mark Ruffalo

Spotlight is a masterclass in storytelling | review
Refreshingly realistic, superbly acted, and top-notch direction, Spotlight proves to be one of the best movies of the year

Powered by JustWatch

About thirty minutes into Spotlight, Boston Globe reporters Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) speak to two of the victims of abuse at the hand of Catholic priests belonging to the Archdiocese of Boston. The two separate interviews are interwoven, one amplifying the message of the other. And in the background — both literally and figuratively — is the Church. It’s scenes like these where Spotlight transforms from an engrossing journalistic slow burn into a marvelous empathetic piece of humanity.

ADVERTISEMENT

Spotlight, directed by Todd McCarthy, tells the story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into the Boston Catholic Church scandal. Headed by Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton), the Boston Globe Spotlight team explore the cover-up of over 90 cases of sexual abuse and molestation of children by Catholic priests.

While Spotlight is a feat of classic screenwriting that harkens back to the days of All the President’s Men or Network, McCarthy’s subtle direction is what amplifies it to greatness.

In frames and in dialogue, the Church’s power is feared and felt. The movie emphasizes: The Church is Boston and Boston is the Church. As attorney Mitch Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) says, “if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.” Moments of pure tension — the ones that bring the film alive — are brought about by the invisible power of the Church and the survivor’s trauma. And while their experience is central, it never feels exploitative.

Unlike the inaptly named film Truth from the same year, Spotlight feels like it’s after the truth, just as much as the journalists at its center.

ADVERTISEMENT

Using natural lighting, imperfect takes, and casting actors according to their strengths gives the movie a cinéma vérité feel that is all the more affecting.

McCarthy leaves dramatic moments to characters rather than formulating the plot around shocking reveals or twists.

The entire ensemble — which Open Road has stressed in their campaign, the word ensemble — is at their career bests. John Slattery is perfect in his follow-up to Mad Men in a role that may feel similar but allows him to flex a muscle he’s been honing for the years the show has been on air. And while Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo have been receiving the bulk of the acclaim of the actors on the Spotlight team, Rachel McAdams steals the… well, spotlight. Controlled and assured, her performance is an anchoring calm that lets the story take the forefront.

ADVERTISEMENT

And that’s what makes Tom McCarthy’s direction so smart. Its restraint allows its subject to shine. The performances give it the time it deserves. Instead of dramatics, Spotlight feels so character driven.

Spotlight tells the story that started the story. In today’s media environment, the role of the press has been both challenged yet as important as ever. The reverence that the movie has for the journalistic process is not only admirable but essential. It goes against anything that we’ve been forced to understand in film nowadays — bigger, louder, more tears, less emotion. However, Spotlight finds itself the best when the script doesn’t try, the actors don’t act, and camera just follows. Spotlight stays with you, if not for the film, at least for the truths that it uncovers.

It reminds us that we deserve the truth, it just takes someone (or someones) to uncover it.

Where to watch Spotlight:

Powered by JustWatch

ADVERTISEMENT

More movies, less problems
Hey! I’m Karl. You can find me on Twitter and Letterboxd. I’m also a Tomatometer-approved critic.

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT
December 30, 2015
Zodiac holds up better than ever 10 years later | movie review
David Fincher’s 2008 film Zodiac has grown to be one of his best, if not one of the best cinematic offerings of the century.

Zodiac strikes the perfect balance between engrossing police procedural, atmospheric horror, and compelling character study to be one of the best movies of the century.

To fully appreciate Zodiac, you have to watch it more than once. On the first viewing, you should focus on the story, the plot, and the red herrings. The twisting tale of the Zodiac killer — a serial killer who tortured Northern California with his sick games for more than a decade — is one that is not easily unraveled. It’s a disorienting story. And director David Fincher understands that. He puts you into the headspace of the characters by playing with space and time.

They’re who you should focus on next. How do they grow throughout the story? Why do they make the decisions they make? It’s not always an easy question to answer. Lastly, look at how the film was put together. An entire semester of cinematography can be taught from this one movie. DP Harris Savides uses a neutral color palette that feels appropriate for the Bay Area setting, but somehow he finds empathy in the characters. Coupled with Angus Wall’s emotive editing, it immerses you in the world. However, it all goes back to the way Fincher mixes these elements. So, watch it a fourth time. Then you’ll understand why this is not only Fincher’s best film but one of the best movies of our generation.

The tale of the Zodiac killer was never one that would easily transfer to film. Despite the violence of the attacks, the publicity of them, and the rigor in which the investigation was handled, in reality, the breaks came slowly and there was never a clear progression when it came to the case. If anything, the most cinematic facet of the story was the multiple red herrings during the investigation. So, how did David Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt fill out the nearly three-hour running time? While the story of the Zodiac was a huge part of the movie, as was the investigation — a large chunk feels like All the President’s Men or Heat — the main focus is how the investigation fundamentally changes the characters.

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT

Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) frames the story as a San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist who is on the periphery of the Zodiac case when the newspaper receives a letter from the killer demanding that a puzzle is published in the paper. Eccentric journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) takes lead on the case for the Chronicle while SFPD Inspector David Toschy (Mark Ruffalo) takes hold of the police investigation.

The first half of the movie plays like a police procedural — take Heat or The French Connection — and newspaper drama — like All the President’s Men or the more recent Spotlight. It’s a thrilling whirlwind of facts and dead ends and terrifying attacks that increasingly adds to the sense of helplessness with the case. However, the second half becomes one man’s obsession — Robert Graysmith, specifically — with finding the truth. Not for any higher purpose. Simply because he craves the answer and eventually needs it.

Zodiac is a story that isn’t inherently cinematic. There isn’t a linear storyline. Essentially we follow information as it’s traded and moved from place to place, which is why Fincher makes the decision to bring it down to the character-level. A huge part of that is due to Savides’ near iconic cinematography. It’s kinetic at some points — the first Zodiac letter arriving at the Chronicle office for example. Other times, it’s emotive — Graysmith speaking with a potential suspect in his home is a masterclass in using camera movements to build tension. It’s the combination of the two that paces the movie in a way that makes it feel like there’s more action happening than there actually is.

Chloé Zhao makes Nomadland‘s melancholic but hopeful story of nomads traversing the American West a stunningly complex character study of life on the margins of society.

Robert Downey Jr. and Jake Gyllenhaal in Zodiac. Courtesy of 20th Century.

That doesn’t mean that its set pieces aren’t thrilling. Those scenes demonstrate Fincher’s patience — it contributes to the nearly 3-hour running time without feeling unnecessary. Take the scene where the Zodiac attacks an unsuspecting couple lounging by a lake. The way it unfolds is slow and deliberate. Calculating, like the Zodiac himself. And unlike Seven, his other crime procedural, the scene is almost devoid of cinematic flair. The scene is scoreless and the cinematography is extremely objective. It’s unsettlingly emotionless — like the killer.

Robert Downey Jr. mixes his carefree attitude perfectly with genuine journalistic curiosity. As the character evolved during the film, Downey is able to maintain a ghost of the character’s previous life to heartbreaking effect. The same goes for Mark Ruffalo. In particular, his chemistry with Anthony Edwards is what makes his character and performance work. Chloe Sevigny also does great work in her limited screentime, which still has an impact.

However, the two performances really stand out. John Carroll Lynch — who does similar creepy work in The Invitation — sends chills down your spine with his enigmatic portrayal that becomes more sickening each moment he’s on the screen. Jake Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, is endearing, which is essential to the role and to the last half of the movie. As Graysmith falls further into his obsession with the Zodiac, it becomes easier to feel alienated by his character. Instead, you feel sympathetic for him. His hunger for the truth is infectious.

I think the acclaim for Zodiac only increases from here. Ten years ago, the film was received rapturously. However, the weight of its cinematic importance has only begun to be appreciated. Even with more popular movies like Fight Club and Gone Girl, and more uniformly acclaimed movies like The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, I believe Zodiac is going to be the Fincher movie to be studied, remembered, and revered most highly. It proves that digital can be as cinematic as film and that long running times, lack of action, and information overload are just minutia when compared to the real goals of the film. Those goals are emotion, the visual language, and the power of cinema that we don’t often stop to appreciate.

ADVERTISEMENT

More movies, less problems
Hey! I’m Karl. You can find me on Twitter and Letterboxd. I’m also a Tomatometer-approved critic.

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT
April 24, 2017
‘Avengers: Endgame’ is a fitting end to the MCU — movie review
Avengers: Endgame is an epic, emotional, spectacle-driven farewell to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we know it — and it’s perfect in every way.

30-second review: Avengers: Endgame is an epic, emotional, spectacle-driven farewell to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we know it. And the fact that it is so clearly an end is part of the reason it’s so successful. There are many callbacks and moments of familiarity that will make fans cheer, but they don’t feel pandering. Screenwriters Christopher Markus and Steven McFeely took care to earn every one of the moments and often having them based in character.

It also helps that the movie’s structure is that of an epic balancing multiple story threads and arcs without feeling overstuffed. And it all culminates in a satisfying, glorious end that reminds us why seeing movies with a crowd is so powerful. The MCU is an incredible feat and Avengers: Endgame is the perfect capper to it.

Where to watch Avengers: Endgame: Available to buy or rent on Amazon.

Whatever it takes. Full review below ?

Don’t get it wrong, Avengers: Endgame is the end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Yes, these movies will continue. But this is a series finale. And like any good series finale, it’s filled with moments of joy — and fan service (more on that later) — sadness, nostalgia, and, most importantly, a vision for the future. Whatever comes next is something new — and that’s the way it should be.

To the credit of MCU mastermind Kevin Feige and directors Joe and Anthony Russo, this movie is proof that every movie, every moment, and every character along the way mattered. Endgame is a celebration of the journey and the six heroes that began it all — Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), Clive Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). It’s their finale — and what an emotional, surprising, and exciting curtain call it is.

It’s difficult to talk about Endgame without spoiling any plot details — and yes, avoid spoilers at all costs. I’ll be vague here. Because even if you think you know what’s going to happen, you don’t. We begin about a month after Thanos (Josh Brolin) wiped out half the population of the universe using the six Infinity Stones and the Avengers are at a loss.

Even though Endgame clocks in at just over 3 hours, it doesn’t drag. Though the first act spends a lot of time with the characters working through their defeat. They have always been the world’s hope. Now, they’re the ones in need of some hope.

It’s the raw moments with these characters that I missed in Infinity War. That movie had the difficult job of setting up the stakes for this movie and it did that successfully. But what makes the MCU so impressive is its willingness to slow the action down for the sake of character development. So much of Endgame is spent delivering payoffs and callbacks for fans. A large chunk of the movie is a clever and entertaining trip down memory lane. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t earn the emotional payoffs for its characters — particularly the original six Avengers.

Eventually, the story shifts to a Hail Mary attempt at reversing the effects of Thanos’ snap that is so ridiculous that it might just work. And the screenplay penned by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely keeps things moving. I’ve always praised the original Avengers movie for its brilliant story structure, Endgame is similarly well-paced and focused. It builds to a brilliant final act that can only be described as Earth-shattering. It’s not an exaggeration to say I was physically shaking.

But that’s what these movies do so well. They get you laughing when they want you to laugh, crying when they want you to cry, cheering when they want you to cheer. If the Russo’s specifically are to be credited with anything it’s that they get you to do those things without feeling like you’ve been manipulated.

Some of the praise for that has to be given to the performances as well. Chris Evans gives the best performance of his decade-long turn as Captain America while Robert Downey Jr. absolutely nails every emotional beat of Tony’s storyline. On the other hand, Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo hold down the comedic end. It’s a well-oiled machine that chugs to its incredibly satisfying conclusion.

Which is good, since this is the end. The MCU will go on, but this is a bittersweet finale this 22-movie run. Storylines come to a end — all well-earned — and characters leave — some die, some move forward to uncertain futures, some stay right where they are. Still, they’re all changed. Every single character is different from when they were first introduced and that’s why no franchise has been able to do what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been able to do.

Endgame is a farewell. An epic, emotionally draining, spectacle-driven farewell. And yet, things are just getting started.

ADVERTISEMENT

More movies, less problems
Hey! I’m Karl. You can find me on Twitter and Letterboxd. I’m also a Tomatometer-approved critic.

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT
April 25, 2019
Thor: Ragnarok review — Funny, quirky, the best Thor movie yet

Thor: Ragnarok is a quirky and hilarious departure from the usual Marvel fare that feels fresh and possibly one of the best movies the studio has put out

The Thor sect of the sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe needed a life saver change after two middling movies that are among the least critically successful movies that the franchise has produced. Well, that lifesaver came in the form of a disco-infused, neon colored shot delivered by director Taika Waititi. His last movie, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, was among my favorites last year and one of the most inspired comedies of the last decade or so. So it’s not surprising that Thor Ragnarok succeeds mainly as a comedy. However, this retro-fitted isn’t just a Guardians of the Galaxy rip-off like it might seem on the surface. Ragnarok succeeds because it has personality. It’s characters come off the screen and become more than just a few well-delivered one-liners. No offense to the Guardians of course.

The plot of Ragnarok sounds like typical Marvel fare, which usually involved some world-ending event that needs to be stopped. Following Age of Ultron, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) goes out to investigate the apocalyptic dreams he’s been having, which turns out to be the eponymous Nordic legend that foretells the destruction of Asgard. However, in the first scene, which starts with Thor, chained up in a cage, in voiceover saying: “You might be wondering how I got here…” It harkens back to the 80s films that Waititi clearly found inspiration in, but more importantly, it tells the audience this is not just going to be fun. It’s going to be silly fun. After seemingly stopping Ragnarok — refreshingly at the beginning of the movie rather than the end — Thor returns to Asgard to learn that Odin isn’t there and is instead on Earth, dying. With the help of Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch in a hilarious cameo), he tracks his father to Norway where he learns that when Odin dies, Thor’s evil sister Hela (Cate Blanchett), goddess of death, will be freed from the prison she was locked away in. And she’s pissed.

Blanchett slips perfectly into the universe as this deliciously evil villain partially because she isn’t afraid to ham up her line deliveries, strut her way between brutal killings, and do everything but twirl a mustache. But it’s what this movie needs in its villain. It needs someone that the audience is going to hate, but love hating her. Hela quickly disposes of Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and makes her way to Asgard and begins her take over. Meanwhile, Thor wakes up in a garbage dump in the planet of Sakaar. This planet, which embraces every color of the rainbow, is what I had been hoping to see from the Thor franchise. Of all the Marvel superheroes, Thor is the only one, other than the Guardians, that has a world that could be built any way that the creators want. And instead, the first two movies opted for New Mexico and London. Here, Waititi fills the world with hilarious and quirky characters — Rachel House is hilarious as a bodyguard and Waititi lends his voice to the pebble-brained Korg — head by the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum, wonderful in his usual Goldblum way).

From there, the movie follows Thor as he attempts to find a way to escape the crazed dictator and finds help from Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and Bruce Banner aka the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). Many of the scenes on the planet are served with Waititi’s usual offbeat humor that works so well and will have you laughing nearly nonstop. The jokes come as often as the action and give the movie a personality and rhythm that none of the others have had.

Hemsworth seems to have finally found the director that meshes with his natural comedic sensibilities that were hinted at in Ghostbusters. Thor, often seen as the most boring Avenger, is allowed to be the comedic force behind this movie and Hemsworth takes up the duty with flair. And that allows the supporting cast to truly have shining hero (and villain) moments. Most notably, Heimdall (Idris Elba), who has been stealthily sheltering the people of Asgard, finally has a storyline worthy of his actor. In watching the first two Thor movies in preparation for this film, one thought carried through to both: why doesn’t Elba have anything to do. Well, that is certainly rectified in this movie. While his screen time isn’t great, Elba has the kind of movie star quality that makes him magnetic on screen.

However, the actor that proves yet again that he’s an indispensable part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Loki. My one and biggest complaint about the movie is that it doesn’t have the strong emotional character arc that most of the Marvel movies have. Something that Spider-Man Homecoming nails. But the closest it comes is the relationship between Thor and Loki. Hiddleston is there largely for the laughs as he attempts to outwit nearly every character with little success. But his best scenes are those where he underplays the relationship that Loki and Thor have built, destroyed, and rebuilt over the entire franchise. This movie would have been the best Marvel movie ever made had it explored the characters on an emotional level, but based on pure entertainment, this is in the upper echelons.

Thor: Ragnarok takes the humor and world-building from Guardians and meshes it nearly seamlessly with the usual Marvel formula to stunning results. It just shows that Marvel needs to continue hiring interesting directors and give them the kind of control they need to bring their vision to life. Ragnarok is the perfect example of that formula succeeding. Waititi turned one of the franchises that seemed to be Marvel’s few failures into the one I’m most interested in seeing continue.

★★★★ out of 5

Watch Thor: Ragnarok on Amazon!

December 5, 2017
2016 Oscar Predictions: Final Predictions

The Oscars are this Sunday, which means it’s time to give you our FINAL 2016 Oscar Predictions. This means that from this point forward I are sticking with out picks and not changing at all. Now, while I try to use the most analytic process to choose who I think will win, sometimes you just have to go with your gut. So there may be some out of left field choices here, but bear with me. I’ll make sure I explain any outlandish picks.

I’m going to start out with the technical categories and make my way down. So, if you want to just read the top five categories, click ahead!

Best Foreign Language Film

Will Win: “Son of Saul”
Could Win: “Mustang”
Should Win:”Son of Saul”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Goodnight, Mommy”

There are two very clear frontrunners for this category. The first is “Son of Saul” which became the early frontrunner our of Cannes. It has the advantage of being a holocaust movie, which do well at the Oscars. It also won the Golden Globe, which isn’t a requirement, but it doesn’t hurt. However, France’s “Mustang” has been this slowly growing contender that has a lot more mainstream appeal than “Son of Saul.” I still think “Son of Saul” has it, but “Mustang” is going to put up a fight.

Best Documentary Feature

Will Win: “Amy”
Could Win: “What Happened, Miss Simone”
Should Win:”The Look of Silence”
Should’ve Been Nominated: N/A

Ever since this category expanded voting to the whole Academy, the crowd-pleasing movie has won over the arthouse pick. “20 Feet From Stardom” over “The Act of Killing” and “Undefeated” over “Paradise Lost 3” are recent example. That’s why I think that if there’s an upset in the category it will “What Happened, Miss Simone” rather than “Cartel Land” like many people are predicting. “Amy” is still who I’m predicting though. It has a lot of buzz and it is a more traditional music documentary, which is popular in this category.

Best Animated Film

Will Win: “Inside Out”
Could Win: “Anamolisa”
Should Win:”Inside Out”
Should’ve Been Nominated: N/A

This is pretty much an open and shut category. With “Inside Out” landing a Best Original Screenplay nomination and coming from the Oscar titan Pixar, there’s almost no way it could lose. Plus, it really deserves to win for making a complicated subject both entertaining and understandable.

Best Film Editing

This is a hotly contested category partly because the winner of this category could help determine Best Picture at the end of the night. Usually the film with the “most” editing wins, which is why “Whiplash” won last year, so “The Big Short” should win here. It also helps that they did win the ACE Eddie Award even though it was in the comedy category and not competing with the other films nominated. If “The Big Short” wins here then they will almost certainly win in the top race. Nevertheless, I think that “Mad Max: Fury Road” is going to take it with both ACE Eddie and BAFTA wins under its belt.

Will Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Could Win: “The Big Short”
Should Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “The Martian”

Best Costume Design

“Mad Max: Fury Road” won the BAFTA award for this category which has been a strong predictor for the Oscars for that last eight years. Yet, I don’t think a win is going to be as easy as that. I think that “Carol” is going to give it a run for its money. The winners of this category tend to be the cleaner period pieces. In the last 20 years, a non-period film won this award only once in 2010 when “Alice In Wonderland” won. However, that film clearly had the most costumes of the category. I’m going to predict “Fury Road” but I won’t be surprised to see “Carol” taking it either.

Will Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Could Win: “Carol”
Should Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Crimson Peak”

Best Production Design

Like the costume design category, Production Design usually goes to a period film, however fantasy does have a better track record here. “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which won here at the BAFTAs should take this quite easily barring a “The Revenant” sweep even though nature did all the work.

Will Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Could Win: “The Revenant”
Should Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Jurassic World”

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Not only did “Mad Max: Fury Road” take the BAFTA, it also took the Makeup and Hairstyling guild award. “The Revenant” has a chance, but “Fury Road” should take this pretty easily.

Will Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Could Win: “The Revenant”
Should Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “The Hateful Eight”

Best Cinematography

Emmanuel “Chivo” Lubezki has won this category twice in a row (and should have won a fourth time for “The Tree of Life”) and should win handily this year as well. Although there was inspired work in this category in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the only film I can really see stopping him is “Sicario” which would give Roger Deakins his long due Oscar. If I had been voting in this category though, I would give it to the gentle but incredibly smart cinematography in “Carol”

Will Win:”The Revenant”
Could Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should Win: “Carol”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “The Assassin”

Best Sound Mixing

The sound categories are surprisingly a bit of a mystery this year. Usually they’re open and shut. However, this year with “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “The Revenant” fighting over the tech categories, it’s not as clear. “Fury Road” had the more clear sound mixing because of its chaotic nature. “The Revenant” is more subtle, but could win in a sweep. Also, it won Best Sound at the BAFTAs. I think this could be a rare year where the sound categories are split and I think “The Revenant” takes this one.

Will Win: “The Revenant”
Could Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should Win: N/A
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Love & Mercy”

Best Sounds Editing

Sound Editing usually goes to the loudest movie like “Gravity,” “Inception,” and “American Sniper.” This year, the loudest film is by far “Mad Mac: Fury Road” so I think that’s where this category is going.

Will Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Could Win: “The Revenant”
Should Win:”Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Inside Out”

Best Original Score

Ennio Moriconne is seen as a lock for his score for “The Hateful Eight”. He’s the consensus choice, a veteran, and the sweeping oventure in the opening is very impressive. However, I think pundits are really overlooking Carter Burwell for “Carol”. He is also a veteran and his score for the film is the most affective and effective of the nominees. I’m pulling for him to take it and I think he could, but I’m sticking with “The Hateful Eight.”

Will Win: “The Hateful Eight”
Could Win: “Carol”
Should Win:”Carol”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “It Follows”

Best Original Song

Lady Gaga and Diane Warren seem to have been the preordained winners of this category for “Til It Happens to You” (“The Hunting Ground”). Lady Gaga has had a huge year and Diane Warren is overdue for a win. It also helps that they lost the Golden Globe since the winner of that award rarely wins at the Oscars. It’s only happened twice since 2000. With that statistic, Sam Smith’s “Writing’s On the Wall” (“Spectre”) probably won’t win. If one nominee is going to upset, it would be the Weeknd’s “Earned It” (“Fifty Shades of Grey”). He’s had a huge year and voters might be wanting to vote for a person of color after #OscarsSoWhite. What holds it back is that if it wins it would mean “Fifty Shades of Grey” is an Oscar winning movie.

Will Win: “Til It Happens to You” (“The Hunting Ground”)
Could Win: “Earned It” (“Fifty Shades of Grey”)
Should Win: “Manta Ray” – Racing Extinction
Should’ve Been Nominated: N/A

Best Visual Effects

“Mad Max: Fury Road” vs. “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. This is going to be one of the hardest categories to call. Either the Academy goes with the film with the most effects, “Star Wars.” Not only is it the biggest box office hit of the year, it would also be their place to honor it. However, “Mad Max” is going to go on a sweep of the tech categories and this would be another one on the way. Although, since there was so much press about it using practical effects voters might not be able to pay attention to the CGI. The other viable contender is “The Revenant.” If it wins, it would solely be for the bear attack scene. I’m going with “Star Wars.” It’s too big of a movie to go home empty-handed and stays in line with the “most effects win” trend.

Will Win: “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
Could Win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should Win: “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Everest”

Best Original Screenplay

I think you could make arguments for “Straight Outta Compton” and “Inside Out” in this category, but this is “Spotlight’s” to lose. If it loses Best Picture, this could be its consolation prize.

Will Win: “Spotlight”
Could Win: “Straight Outta Compton”
Should Win:”Spotlight”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Anamolisa”

Best Adapted Screenplay

Similarly to Original Screenplay, this category is all but locked up by “The Big Short.” I’d love to see Drew Goddard’s brilliant treatment of “The Martian” win, but “The Big Short” has the precursors and a possible Best Picture win behind it.

Will Win: “The Big Short”
Could Win: “Room”
Should Win:”The Martian”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Steve Jobs”

Best Actor

This is Leonardo DiCaprio‘s race to lose. He’s at the point in his career where he’s due an Oscar in a larger than life role in a movie that is a huge contender. If he doesn’t win, then someone at the Academy hates him.

Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio, “The Revenant”
Could Win: Brian Cranston, “Trumbo”
Should Win: Michael Fasbender, “Steve Jobs”
Should’ve Been Nominated: Michael B. Jordan, “Creed”

Best Actress

Brie Larson (“Room”) is at the point in her career where she is also due a win. She’s won everything so far and should take it pretty easily.

Will Win: Brie Larson, “Room”
Could Win: Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn”
Should Win: Charlotte Rampling, “45 Years”
Should’ve Been Nominated: Teyonah Parris, “Chi-Raq” or Emily Blunt (“Sicario”)

Best Supporting Actor

Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”) has all the momentum behind him. He has a great narrative, good enough performance, and no clear competitor. However, a part of me is telling me that Mark Ruffalo (“Spotlight”) is finally going to get his first Oscar. I don’t know if it’s going to happen and I really don’t have precedent to back me up. I’m going to save my gutsy pick for Supporting Actress, but if Ruffalo does win I’ll be kicking myself.

Will Win: Sylvester Stallone, “Creed”
Could Win: Mark Ruffalo, “Spotlight”
Should Win: Tom Hardy, “The Revenant”
Should’ve Been Nominated: Idris Elbar, “Beasts of No Nation” or Benicio Del Toro (“Sicario”) or Liev Schreiber (“Spotlight”) it was a great year.

Best Supporting Actress

I don’t buy the Alicia Vikander (“The Danish Girl”) win. It just doesn’t feel right. Yes, she won the SAG, but I think she’s a very weak frontrunner and there’s a lot of support for Golden Globe and BAFTA winner Kate Winslet (“Steve Jobs”). Her performance already has a higher degree of difficulty and more successful execution. She’s also a charming industry favorite and is almost unidentifiable in the film. I’m going with Winslet as my gutsy acting prediction. Will it happen? I think it really could.

Will Win: Kate Winslet, “Steve Jobs”
Could Win: Alicia Vikander, “The Danish Girl”
Should Win: Kate Winslet, “Steve Jobs”
Should’ve Been Nominated: Alicia Vikander, “Ex Machina”

Best Director

I can’t express how much I want George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) to win this. He is the most deserving for creating this world with such detail and showing how an action film and film should be done. However, he’s going to have an extremely hard time beating Alejandro G. Inarritu (“The Revenant”), who won the DGA. The one thing working against him is that he would become only the third director to win two consecutive Oscars in this category. I think people are aware of this and don’t want it to happen. If I was a braver man I’d go with Miller, but Inarritu is my pick.

Will Win: Alejandro G. Inarritu, “The Revenant”
Could Win: George Miller, “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should Win: George Miller, “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: Todd Haynes, “Carol”

Best Picture

Shockingly, Best Picture is the most difficult category to predict. Usually at this point we’d have a clear picture, but certain trends would have to be broken for any of the frontrunners to win. “Spotlight” was the early frontrunner, but it’s too small of a film to win. We learned that last year with “Boyhood.” “The Revenant“ has the momentum and won the key DGA award. However, it lost PGA and didn’t have an integral SAG nomination. All arrows seem to be pointing at “The Revenant”. However, PGA is the most similar to Oscar voting, which is why every year in the last six years has the winner of the PGA repeated at the Oscars. That give “The Big Short” the boost. It also received an integral SAG ensemble nod, which is also necessary to win (the last time the Oscar winner wasn’t nominated at SAG was when “Braveheart” won.) Any of these three films could win, but “The Big Short” seems to be the most feasible winner.

Will Win: “The Big Short”
Could Win: “The Revenant”
Should Win:”Mad Max: Fury Road”
Should’ve Been Nominated: “Steve Jobs” or “Sicario” or “Ex Machina”

Who do you think will win at this year’s Oscars? Tweet at us with your predictions!

February 25, 2016