Reeling Backward: "Bedazzled" (1967)

People nowadays forget that Dudley Moore came to prominence as part of a comedic duo rather than as a solo personality. He and Peter Cook were collaborators on theater productions of "Beyond the Fringe," then on the TV show "Not Only... But Also" -- which originated as a Moore vehicle but quickly became a partnership when everyone realized how strong was their onscreen chemistry and off-screen writing.

They starred in a number of movies together, starting with "The Wrong Box" in 1966 and then "Bedazzled" the next year, for which they co-wrote the story, reusing some of their favorite gags from stage and screen. The relationship continued with more movies, television specials, theater work and comedy albums until the late 1970s, when it ended because of Cook's drinking and Moore's sudden, unexpected vault to romantic leading man status with Blake Edwards' "10."

They make for an arresting pair, with a full foot of difference in height, Cook usually playing the outgoing schemer and Moore as the self-doubting wallflower. Their divergence is used to full effect in this takeoff on the parable of Faust, in which an ordinary man is tempted by the Devil with promises of fabulous wishes in exchange for his measly soul.

Cook, with his cocked eyebrows and imperial carriage, plays Lucifer, of course, known in his London form as George Spiggott. Moore is Stanley Moon, a shy short-order cook at Wimpy's -- a real British burger franchise of the time -- who is hopelessly smitten with a waitress, Margaret (Eleanor Bron).

Stanley Donen directed, about midway through an impressive Hollywood career spanning 50 years (and he's still with us!). According to lore, Donen shot an opening for the movie that was never used: he speaks directly to the audience about not wanting to make such a frivolous film, but Cook as the Devil whispers into his ear about all the money they'll make.

A wonderful story, true or not.

The film is replete with impish humor and caustic one-liners. George tempts Stanley with seven wishes, which he then sabotages because, he says, he is compelled by God to spread misery. But the pair genuinely grow to like each other, and much of the story is simply them hanging around together, chatting about life's mysteries and why Stanley is so despondent that he tried to hang himself.

(A 2000 remake, with Brendan Fraser as the sap and Elizabeth Hurley as the devil, reflected no glory upon the original.)

This Devil is a busy man. He's constantly distracted with little jobs to make people unhappy, such as rifling through people's luggage or cutting up their dry cleaning. -- "Just a bit of routine mischief," he says. In one memorable bit, he sets a pigeon loose from a rooftop to release his "doo-dahs" on the hat of a gentleman, who is appropriately miffed.

Stanley: "If you're the Devil, why didn't you go for that Vicar down there?"
George: "Oh, no. He's one of ours."

Cheekily mocking organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular was a favorite pastime of British comedians of that era -- see Hill, Benny -- as seen late in the film when the Pope himself drunkenly hits upon Stanley, currently dressed in a nun's habit: "Come on sweetie, let's dance."

George runs a night club/strip bar in the seedy end of London, the Rendezvous Club, which doubles as his HQ. All the Seven Deadly Sins work there for him -- Anger is the surly bouncer, Sloth is a lawyer who rarely awakes, Gluttony is a heavyset woman perpetually shoving food into her face, etc.

"What rotten sins I've got working for me. I suppose it's the wages," George quips.

I particularly liked Barry Humphries as Envy, who has a pretty undemanding workload but complains endless nonetheless about not getting the best table, being forced out of Satan's bed by Stanley, etc. There are some other interesting bit characters, some head-scratching, such as Lord Dowdy, an unctuous nobleman with a crippling stutter. (A comment on a contemptible political figure of the day? If so, the reference escapes.)

Lust herself is played by Raquel Welch, doing a brocaded American Southern accent, who tries to seduce Stanley but is interrupted by George (prearranged, perhaps?) just as they're about to seal the deal. Welch, famous for her well-flaunted physical assets and not much more, gets the job done.

(Despite having only two scenes, Welch appeared on virtually all the film's posters and promotional materials, leaving the somewhat mannish Bron in the lurch. Donen seems to have gone out of his way to render her more unattractive, including distracting blue eye shadow and a soaring hairstyle that is best described as Mod Pippy Longstocking.)

"Bedazzled" is one of those silly pictures with something more serious going on underneath. Cook, Moore and Donen deliver their criticisms of the modern age -- plastic flowers, for heaven's sake! -- with a wink and a smile, rather than a sneer and a pout. Perhaps the most devastating is one of Stanley's wish sequences, in which he is transformed into pop star adored by all the girls, including Margaret, swooning at his ballad entreaty to "love me!"

But then George steps in, following up this televised act with his own as "Drimble Wedge and the Vegetations," in which he talk-sings his disdain for any kind of feminine attention. Of course, the women drop pop Stanley like a hot potato in order to clamor for the Devil's (dis)interest. It's a sly comment that cuts at many targets: pop music, the English Psychedelia movement, female intuition, television's impact on popular culture, etc.

Stanley's existential state during his association with Lucifer is somewhat vague in a metaphysical sense. Occasionally the action goes back to follow Margaret assisting the police in investigating Stanley's disappearance and presumed suicide (based on his note), where she is not-so-subtly hit on by the much older lead detective (Michael Bates).

Presumably this represents reality, or at least the version George allows Stanley to see. But Margaret also appears in all of Stanley's wish scenarios, which are either illusions or alternate realities.

Some of the wish scenes are wickedly funny, though some are merely uncomfortable, such as the first in which Stanley wishes to be well-spoken, quoting philosophers and rolling his R's with the fervor of a drunken Welshman. In other iterations he is a multimillionaire frustrated by Margaret's canoodling with the harp teacher, a college boy who is the homewrecker himself or, literally, a fly on the wall.

George also appears in all the wishes, playing different roles in the set pieces -- "There's a little of me in everyone," after all.

Inevitably, the Devil's promised bliss is ruined by some loophole Stanley forgot to elucidate that George must exploit. "Doctor's orders," he intones, finger pointed heavenward.

In the last one Stanley is trapped as a nun ("Sister Luna") in a new order that reveres their chosen saint by jumping on trampolines. Always, Margaret remains just out of reach. Things end happily with the Devil being thwarted by the Lord, Stanley receiving his soul back and resolving to try things his way without any celestial (or damned) intervention.

"Bedazzled" is a fun movie, clever and smart with a few things to say underneath the snickering.

Video review: "Legend"

“Legend” is a solid gangster picture and a showcase for the versatile Tom Hardy, who played both halves of the infamous Kray sibling duo, who ruled London’s criminal underside in their 1960s heyday.

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland, based on a book by John Pearson, it tries a little too obviously to be the “British ‘Goodfellas’” -- but if that’s the worst thing you can say about a movie, that isn’t too shabby.

The challenge for Hardy is playing two men who outwardly are very similar but personality-wise are quite different. Reggie Kray was smooth, dapper, an ex-boxer and consummate ladies’ man who liked to run swank nightclubs and hobnob with celebrities. Ronnie was a sociopath -- he’d been committed to psychiatric hospital -- belligerent and bisexual. He was devoted to Reggie but resented the way people were drawn to him, so Ronnie repelled others as a way to compensate.

Even the way the twins talk diverges in Hardy’s interpretation. Ronnie sounds as if he has a mouthful of marbles, through which his harsh cockney accent bleats and spits.

(Hardy, while a monumentally gifted actor, seems to have a contemptuous disregard for comprehensibility. You’ll want to watch this one with the subtitles on.)

Emily Browning plays Frances, who gets courted and wed by Reggie, which she soon comes to regret as they are separated by his partying and prison stints. She narrates the film, performing much the same role as the William Holden character in “Sunset Boulevard.”

Also turning up are Paul Bettany as a rival mobster; David Thewlis as the Krays’ right-hand man; Christopher Eccleston as the London Yard detective on the case; Chazz Palminteri as an American mafia figure offering a business relationship, and danger; and Taron Egerton as Ronnie’s volatile boy toy.

It’s a wonderful-looking film, full of mod clothes and cars and tunes. It really does emulate the style of “Goodfellas,” with breezy scenes intermixed with bursts of horrific violence. These movies are not just trying to depict gangsters as interesting figures, but sex them up into iconic anti-heroes.

Extra features including a feature-length commentary track by Helgeland and a making-of documentary, “Creating the Legend.”

Movie:

Extras:

Review: "Gods of Egypt"

"Gods of Egypt" is the sort of thing you're tempted to laugh out loud at -- and believe me, I did, several times -- but I can't bring myself to hate it. It's the sort of goofy disposable entertainment that seems self-aware of its nature, embraces it and has fun with it.

We've had big-budget spectacles featuring the Greek/Roman pantheon of deities as well as the Norse ones via the Thor movies, so now it's the Egyptians' turn. Because everyone was demanding a Horus/Set throwdown, right?

Director Alex Proyas is known for this sort of thing -- "Dark City," "The Crow" and similar middle-brow adventures in the fantasy/science fiction wing. At $140 million, it approaches triple the budget of "Deadpool," though the CGI, while extensive, often has that cheap shallow texture endemic to cut-rate/foreign jobs.

I noticed Proyas often cut away from money shots quickly, giving us time to absorb the impact without letting our gaze linger too long to seek imperfections.

The final package is a giddy sandals-and-swords romp that feels like it plucked elements from various other movies. The gods transform into metal warriors, there are sand snakes plucked straight out of "Dune," there's lots of parkour-ish stunts involving flips and contortions that aren't really necessary to get the job done.

Plus the expected quotient of heaving bosoms, comic sidekicks and so on.

The setup here is that in this version ancient Egypt -- script by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless -- the gods literally dwelled among the mortals and ruled them. They're eight feet tall, have amazing powers and live a thousand years, but they can certainly be killed and maimed -- and certainly will be over the course of the next 127 minutes.

They're essentially super heroes, dealing with the same-ol' great powers/great responsibility conundrum.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, best known for portraying the morally conflicted Jamie Lanister on "Game of Thrones," plays Horus, the lord of air, known for his keen sight and true aim. As the story opens he's about to be crowned king of Egypt, as daddy Osiris (an oddly uncredited Brian Brown) has reined over peace and prosperity for an eon and is ready to pass the mantle on.

But Uncle Set (Gerard Butler, in full shout-and-flex mode) isn't happy about being banished by father Ra to the wasted desert, and decides it's his turn to rule. He does some Very Bad Things, including plucking out Horus' eyes and banishing him.

Cut to our adorable human facilitator, a young thief named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) whose gorgeous lady love, Zaya (Courtney Eaton), worshiped Horus before his overthrow. She convinces Bek to steal Horus' eyes -- represented as glowing blue jewels -- from the elaborate maze of traps constructed by Set's chief builder (Proyas favorite Rufus Sewell). He manages to snatch one, but Zaya is killed in retaliation.

Bek revives the self-pitying Horus, but with one eye he's only a half-powered god. They set off on a familiar quest for revenge and true love, as Horus promises to rescue Zaya from Anubis' underworld.

Helping out are Hathor (Elodie Yung), the goddess of love who has been joined to both Horus and Set, depending on her need; and Thoth (Chadwick Boseman), the prissy but good-hearted god of knowledge and wisdom.

It's not a particularly Egyptian-looking cast, but there at least is a decent enough mix of ethnicities to pass muster as a multicultural mashup.

I liked Coster-Waldau in the lead role, even though he isn't given much to do other than fight and seethe. He's got an easygoing charisma and likable screen presence. I was glad to see the depiction of a normal male body that's athletic without the usual veiny/engorged look that's become so prevalent.

The movie takes tons of liberties with traditional Egyptian mythology, whipping up all sorts of side characters and events to fit their purposes, and sweeping anything that doesn't fit under the rug. (Look up the recorded conflict between Horus and Set; it was much more, uh, spunky.)

One of the coolest set pieces is Ra's chariot pulling the sun across the sky each day -- in this depiction, the earth is most definitively flat -- doing nightly battle with Apep, the worm of destruction. Played by Geoffrey Rush, Ra is an ancient, remote god who watches the exploits of his descendants below, silently judging but taking no direct action.

The whole sequence is quite majestic and beautiful, which is an amusing contrast with the squirmy, silly stuff happening in the sand. I think if Ra were to weigh this movie on its celestial worth, he'd probably toss it into the trashbin of the cosmos -- but he'd chortle while doing it.

Fearless Oscar predictions and picks: 2015

I've said it before and I will say it again with Rubio-like constancy: 2015 will go down as one of the all-time great years in cinema. It's only appropriate, then, that the race for the Academy Award for Best Picture is one of the most contentious and unpredictable in decades.

Usually by now a portrait emerges: a clear favorite, its chief competition and a dark horse or two. The clear favorite nearly always wins, the last big upset coming for 1999 when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." (While "Crash" from 2006 was a clear mistake, I'm not sure how popular deserving winner "Brokeback Mountain" really was among Academy voters.)

This time around, the picture is as clear as mud.

Based on the preliminary awards, it's a three-way race between "The Revenant," "Spotlight" and "The Big Short." All three arrive with the credentials to be called a front-runner.

The result? Utter, glorious higgledy-piggledy.

So here are my predictions for the winners in all 24 categories. (Hey, you can't call yourself a true Oscar prognosticator unless you're willing to make a pick for Best Black and White Costume Short.)

As always, not only will I tell you who think will win and who should win, I'll gleefully toss out some of the nominees in favor of more deserving ones, in a soon-to-be hallowed tradition I call the "Chris Cross."

Best Picture

"The Revenant" won the Golden Globe for drama (with non-Oscar-contender "The Martian" ludicrously taking the comedy award), BAFTA best film and, most significantly, Directors Guild award. Director and co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu has the gloss of prestige as last year's Oscar winner. A repeat would be historic, only the third time a director has won back-to-back awards and the first in 65 years.

"Spotlight" got the Screen Actors Guild award for best cast -- their equivalent of best picture -- the Writers Guild award for drama and the top award from the Broadcast Film Critics Association. (Including my ballot as a first-time voting member.) Plus the endorsement of many regional film critic groups, including the Indiana Film Journalists Association. (I'm everywhere!)

Coming in strong at the end of the race is "The Big Short," directed by goofball comic filmmaker Adam McKay, which shocked many with a win from the Producers Guild, which historically has been one of the best predictors of the Oscar winner. It also took the Writers Guild award for comedy.

Like I said, it's a tough call. I'm going to throw out "Big Short," more or less on gut feeling. It just doesn't have that shiny patina of a Best Pic. On paper "Revenant" seems to have the edge -- it's got "prestige picture" written all over it, and a solid pedigree of previous Oscar nominees and winners.

But there's a backlash growing against "Revenant." A lot of people feel it's too violent and overpraised. There was also a sizeable contingent in Hollywood who thought "Birdman" was similarly overblown -- my hand goes up! -- and don't like to dole out golden statuettes haphazardly.

So I predict "Spotlight" will eke out a win.

For the Chris Cross, I don't feel that any of the eight nominees are truly undeserving. All made my list of the best films of the year -- just much lower down.

Will Win: Spotlight
Should Win: Spotlight
Chris Cross: The End of the Tour, Love & Mercy, Mr. Holmes and Steve Jobs replace Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, The Martian and The Revenant.

Director

Iñárritu won the DGA award, which is usually the Oscar winner, so he has to be called the front-runner. Tom McCarthy of "Spotlight" and Lenny Abrahamson of "Room" are low-profile filmmakers without a lot of credits under their belt. Adam McKay has been known for gross-out comedies, often starring Will Ferrell, and that will hurt him. So the only real competition is George Miller.

I would give it to Miller. More than any film, "Mad Max: Fury Road" represents one artist's singular vision. The Aussie revived a nearly 40-year-old franchise with a new actor and then went one better and centered the story around another (female) character. Bold, visionary filmmaking.

Miller is hurt by the fact that his film falls into the action/adventure mold, and those do not fare well in the awards.

If Iñárritu prevails he would join Joseph L. Mankiewicz and John Ford as the only directors to win back-to-back Oscars. That's pretty rarefied country, and I think voters will take a hard look at "The Revenant" and "Birdman" and ask if those are films that really deserve to go down as all-time greats.

Will Win: George Miller
Should Win: George Miller
Chris Cross: Tough call, but I will knock out Iñárritu for James Ponsoldt of "The End of the Tour," a criminally overlooked film. Ridley Scott deserved a nom, too, but not sure who I'd cross out.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

The screenplay categories are where the Academy likes to reward smaller films that don't have a shot at winning Best Picture. So whichever category doesn't have the Best Pic winner is the one where they can "spread the love." Since I think "Spotlight" will win Best Picture, it will likely win the Original Screenplay category.

The favorite here is "The Big Short," which took a complex issue and melded it into a digestible, funny and infuriating take on the real estate bubble. It also won the WGA award, so it's the clear favorite.

Its main competition is "Room." While it's a wonderful film, #2 on my list of the year's best, I think its strength lies in its performances rather than the script. (Which does have a few minor problems, particularly in the second half with the William H. Macy character.)

Contrastingly, it's amazing to me that "Steve Jobs" and "The End of the Tour," both carefully constructed narratives, did not get nominations. Meanwhile, old-fashioned storytelling in "Brooklyn" and "Carol" was recognized.

It's important to note that "The Revenant" did not get a writing nod, which I think underscores the movie's weakness in the big race.

While Best Picture winners occasionally lack any acting nominations -- "Slumdog Millionaire" most recently -- it's rare for them to not be recognized for the screenplay. Only seven films have won Best Pic without a screenplay nod, and most of them were in the very early days of the Academy Awards. The most recent being "Titanic" in 1997 and "The Sound of Music" in 1965.

Will Win: The Big Short
Should Win: The Big Short
Chris Cross: The End of the Tour and Steve Jobs replace Brooklyn and Carol.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

One of the easiest calls of the night, for "Spotlight." It won the WGA award and could be the Best Picture. If it doesn't, then this is its make-up award.

Why no screenplay nom for "Mad Max: Fury Road?" Sure, there's not a lot of dialogue and there is a lot of action. But structure-wise it's just brilliant. And the characters are really distinctly written. It was a chase movie that built a whole world around it. Meanwhile, "Ex Machina" had an innovative starting concept and then made a lot of overly safe choices.

Will Win: Spotlight
Should Win: Spotlight
Chris Cross: Mad Max: Fury Road for Ex Machina.

Actress in a Leading Role

Brie Larson of "Room" has been one of Hollywood's best-kept secrets for a while, and she's all lined up to become her generation's Hilary Swank, winning this award at a young age for a tiny picture, which will hopefully boost her into the sort of roles that Jennifer Lawrence or Carey Mulligan are getting now. Those of us who caught "Short Term 12" a few years back saw this day coming.

Her main competition is Cate Blanchett, a former winner with a great pedigree. Charlotte Rampling was a sentimental choice in a movie hardly anyone saw. "Joy" underperformed in box office and critical praise, so J. Law is probably on the sidelines this time. "Carol" got a lot of early buzz before anyone saw it, then they saw it, and the buzz died down.

Maggie Smith of "The Lady in the Van" and Charlize Theron of "Mad Max: Fury Road" deserved nods.

Will Win: Brie Larson
Should Win: Brie Larson
Chris Cross: The commanding Charlize Theron and the sublime Maggie Smith knock out Jennifer Lawrence and Cate Blanchett.

 

Actress in a Supporting Role

A busy category with no clear favorite. Kate Winslet would seem to be the front-runner, as a past multiple nominee and winner, and she was great in "Steve Jobs." And she took the Golden Globe. But Alicia Vikander won the Screen Actors Guild Award and seems to have the late momentum. Of course, hers was clearly a leading role, but we're used to shenanigans in category hopping by now. That could help and hurt her.

Coin flip. Most of the prognosticators are picking Vikander. I'll take the load less traveled and say Winslet.

My choice would be Rachel McAdams, who shined in a non-showy role.

Will Win: Kate Winslet
Should Win: Rachel McAdams
Chris Cross: Elizabeth Banks centered "Love &  Mercy," while Rooney Mara contributed to the overwrought snoozefest that is "Carol."

Actor in a Leading Role

Another easy call. Leonardo DiCaprio has been Hollywood royalty for two-plus decades. He's been nominated five times without winning, and probably had at least a couple other times he should've been. He's run the the table on the preliminary awards and seems to have this locked up. Like Paul Newman, he'll win not for the finest performance of his career but because "it's his time."

That's not a diss; Leo was indeed outstanding in "The Revenant," in a largely non-vocal role, which is a huge contrast to his filmography of fast talkers. Of those nominated, I would give the slight edge to Michael Fassbender, who played the myth rather than the man in "Steve Jobs."

My picks to win would be Jacob Tremblay of "Room" or Jason Segel for "The End of the Tour," but neither was nominated. Would've also loved to see nominations for Ian McKellen, Tom Hanks, Jesse Eisenberg, Paul Dano, Johnny Depp and Mark Ruffalo, but more love than nominations to go around.

Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio
Should Win: Michael Fassbender
Chris Cross: Jacob Tremblay and Jason Segal replace Bryan Cranston and Eddie Redmayne.

Actor in a Supporting Role

Nearly always the busiest category with the most number of snubs, and this year's no different. The lack of nominations for Idris Elba of "Beasts of No Nation" and Michael Shannon of "99 Homes" really, really grates. Their films don't work without them. Essentially, they're the subjects of their movies and the protagonist is the object.

You could've also put up Paul Giamatti twice, for playing musical Svengalis in "Straight Outta Compton" and "Love & Mercy." Also dissed were Michael Keaton, Steve Carell, John Cusack (arguably a leading role), and a few others.

Of those nominated, Sylvester Stallone appears to be the strong sentimental pick. Capping off a great career and all that (so long as you conveniently forget long stretches of it). Mark Rylance is big in theater and kind of anonymous in film, so I don't expect the actors' wing to vote for him in great numbers. Tom Hardy was good in "The Revenant" but it was possibly his fourth best performance of the year. (If you count "Legend" as two, and I do.)

I would say Mark Ruffalo is the stalking horse here. Very respected actor who shifts easily between indies, mainstream dramas and now big-budget spectacles. He would be my pick of those nominated.

Will Win: Sylvester Stallone
Should Win: Mark Ruffalo
Chris Cross: Steve Carell, Michael Shannon and Idris Elba edge out Christian Bale, Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance.

 

Animated Feature

Despite being an outstanding movie year, it was a rather weak one for animated films and comedies. Disney/Pixar is seen as having kicked themselves out of a moribund funk with "Inside Out," after years of sequels and cut-rate rehashes. For my money I slightly preferred the heartfelt "The Good Dinosaur," which wasn't nominated. Meanwhile, the fun but utterly forgettable "Shaun the Sheep Movie" was.

My fellow Indiana critic adored "Anomalisa," but I felt it was weird and quirky for he sake of being weird and quirky. I think Charlie Kaufman, like George Lucas, works better as an idea and story man who hands off the nuts and bolts elsewhere.

I haven't seen the two foreign nominated films -- virtually no one has -- so I can't assess their quality.

Will Win: Inside Out
Should Win: Inside Out
Chris Cross: The Good Dinosaur for Shaun the Sheep Movie.

Foreign Language Film

Historically a tough category to pick as most of the nominees typically don't make it to U.S. theaters until long after the Oscars have been given out. "Son of Saul" has made a strong showing in the preliminary awards, and made my top 10 list.

Will Win: Son of Saul
Should Win: Son of Saul

Documentary Feature

"Amy" has this one all locked up, and deserves to.

Will Win: Amy
Should Win: Amy

Documentary Short

 I haven't seen any of these.


Will Win: A Girl in the River: The Prince of Forgiveness

Short Film (Animated)

I adored "Bear Story," but most people are predicting the darkly (very darkly) comedic "World of Tomorrow."

Will Win: World of Tomorrow
Should Win: Bear Story

Short Film (Live Action)

A very clear standout here imho.

Will Win: Shok
Should Win: Shok

 

Cinematography

The most important of the "minor" awards. The way a film is photographed has a major impact on how we react to it emotionally and intellectually. Take a look at "Son of Saul" for a prime example. I also adored the hauntingly beautiful "The Martian" among the snubees.

"The Revenant" seems to have this one in the bag, due to the oft-cited difficulty of shooting in a natural setting with extreme climate. I will take "Mad Max: Fury Road" for its great, grainy look and practical camera effects.

I love to rag on "Carol," but it was indeed an exquisite-looking film; indeed, the thrust of my complaint is that it's a pretty box with nothing inside. Robert Richardson managed to be quite inventive inside a confined space... but 19/20ths of "The Hateful Eight" still takes place inside a single room. If we're going to award brownie points to "Revenant" for degree of difficulty, we have to subtract for ease.

Will Win: The Revenant
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
Chris Cross: The Martian and Son of Saul for Sicario and The Hateful Eight.

Costume Design

In a year with a strong favorite for Best Picture, many of the other categories tend to fall in line with wins whether they deserve them or not. That isn't the case this year, so people feel free to vote for what they thought was the truly most outstanding achievement in a given field -- a novel idea, that.

You'd think "The Danish Girl" would win here, since it's a story told largely through clothes. Most people are picking "Mad Max: Fury Road." I think it will go to "Carol."

Will Win: Carol
Should Win: The Danish Girl

Film Editing

The consensus seems to be that "Mad Max: Fury Road" is going to run the table on the "technical" awards, or close to it. I find little reason to disagree. Just a masterpiece of craftsmanship. Though I think "The Revenant" will pick off a few, mostly for its dense aural landscape.

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Production Design 

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Sound Mixing

Will Win: The Revenant
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Sound Editing

Will Win: The Revenant
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Visual Effects

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Makeup and Hairstyling

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Music (Original Song)

"Simple Song #3" was about the only thing I actually liked about "Youth." The fact that "Fifty Shades of Grey" has one more Oscar nomination than "Love & Mercy," "Mr. Holmes," "The End of the Tour" and many other outstanding films is worthy of Dante's Inferno-style damnation.

I think the Academy will go Gaga. At least Sam Smith's falsetto warbling, aka "Worst Bond Title Song Ever," won't win.

Will Win: Til It Happens To You from The Hunting Ground
Should Win: Til It Happens To You from The Hunting Ground

Music (Original Score)

This could be the most sentimental category of the night. You've got two film music legends, John  Williams and Ennio Morricone, going head-to-head. Despite this being his 50th nomination -- that's right, 5-0 -- Williams won't win because "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" simply builds on his already iconic music of nearly 40 years ago. "The Hateful Eight" is one of Morricone's most playful scores, if not among his very best -- though that's rarefied terrain indeed.

Having never won in five previous tries -- even being written off with the "We think you're done" honorary Oscar in 2007 -- this will finally be the 87-year-old Italian's time.

Will Win: The Hateful Eight
Should Win: The Hateful Eight

Review: "Eddie the Eagle"

“Eddie the Eagle” looks at first glance like a standard sports underdog story. Indeed, it’s a virtual remake of “Cool Runnings,” the 1993 film about the Jamaican bobsled team that competed at the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary.

In fact, “Eddie” is set at the same time and place and involves another unlikely competitor who got his ticket punched to the Olympics only because of a complete absence of competition from their home country. With both the Jamaicans and British ski jumper Eddie Edwards, the goal was not to win but simply to earn a place in the competition.

They even recycle the made-up character of the washed-up, alcoholic athlete who reluctantly takes on the mantle of coach and mentor -- played by John Candy then and Hugh Jackman now.

But scratch but a little deeper, and you’ll find a story that’s actually about bullying, and overcoming it.

Director Dexter Fletcher and screenwriters Sean Macaulay and Simon Kelton see in Eddie, a humble working-class plasterer played by Taron Egerton, an awkward kid who’s been picked on his entire life, and smelts that negative energy into determination to prove everyone wrong.

“I was kicked off every team I ever tried out for even before I had a chance to prove myself,” Eddie says.

A lot of the fascination with Eddie, and the reason that gives power to his redemption, is that he’s homely. With coke-bottle glasses, pinched features, horsey teeth and strangely angled jaw, Eddie gets written off by most everyone he meets. He wore braces on his legs as a child, and there’s still a quality of ungainliness about him. Just standing still, he looks awkward.

Earnest and not bright enough to be called a nerd, Eddie is the guy everybody laughs at.

The British Olympic selection committee certainly laugh him off, declining to let him try out for the skiing team despite being one of the top amateurs in England. Later it’s the veteran ski jumpers from Finland or Norway who titter when Eddie decides to take on the sport. They’re all long, lean Vikings, and here’s this stumpy, half-blind guy who resembles the antithesis of athleticism.

But Eddie is determined, declining to listen even to his father, who orders him repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to give up his Olympic dream and settle down in a stable trade. Mum (Jo Hartley) is more supportive, slipping him money and the even more valuable currency of absolute affection.

Eddie selects ski jumping because Britain hasn’t had one in Olympic competition in more than 50 years. That means there’s no community to train him up -- but also no one he has to try out against.

It might seem easy to be the best at something that no one else is doing. But this is a sport where mistakes lead not to disgrace, but a coffin.

Jackman plays Bronson Peary, a legendary former ski jumper who got kicked off the U.S. team for his drinking and carousing. Now the old lush who runs the snow plow, he becomes Eddie’s only friend and trainer. He doesn’t want the job, but reckons that if he doesn’t help, Eddie is liable to wind up dead.

Fletcher stages the jumps engagingly, showing us the soaring beauty and almost insane danger of the sport. The decathlon may be the measure of the finest overall athlete, but nobody routinely ends up with a broken body.

Egerton, who played second fiddle to Colin Firth in last year’s “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” gets more of a chance to shine here as the gullible but sweet Eddie. He shows us how this remarkable young man turned derision into cheers, and how triumph does not necessarily mean receiving a medal.

Video review: "The Good Dinosaur"

"Shaun the Sheep" got an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature, but "The Good Dinosaur" did not? Color me confused.

In a relatively weak year for animated pictures, "The Good Dinosaur" stands out for me as marginally the best of the lot. Certainly better than the cute-but-predictable "Shaun," or the weird-for-weird's-sake "Anomalisa." I'll even take it over the giddy but hardly superior fellow traveler in the Disney/Pixar universe, "Inside Out."

(The other two Academy Award nominees are foreign language films that haven't been widely released on these shores.)

I enjoyed "Dinosaur" because it was an empathetic, vibrantly told tale with some originality and verve. It's about a juvenile dinosaur, Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), who gets separated from his family and falls in with a feral human boy, Spot (Jack Bright). In one of the movie's many clever twists, here the reptiles are the evolved species that talk and use tools, while the homo sapiens are primitives who use their beastly skills to survive -- in Spot's case, mostly by stealing from Arlo's clan.

It's a familiar 'hero's journey' type of story, with Arlo having to experience all kinds of scary, and occasionally thrilling, adventures in order to find his rightful place in the world.

It's a beautifully rendered planet, with the humans and dinosaurs drawn in a deliberately cartoon-y way, while all of the natural backdrops and supporting critters are super realistic. You'd think the combination would be off-putting, but after a bit we settle in and it feels right.

Screenwriter Meg LaFauvre's script is a solid mix of familiar elements -- a little bit "Finding Nemo," a smidgen of "The Lion King" -- and new stuff. The story has a way of scaring us just when we thought things were safe, and turning fearsome encounters on their head.

It did pretty mediocre at the box office, so there's a good chance you didn't see "The Good Dinosaur" in theaters. Give it the second chance it richly deserves on video.

Bonus features are quite good. In addition to a feature-length commentary track by director Peter Sohn and key crew members, there are also three deleted scenes, five making-of featurettes, some original animation used for promotional purposes, and the animated short "Sanjay's Super Team" -- which DID get an Oscar nomination.

Movie:
 


Extras:

Review: "Risen"

"Risen" has the unfortunate timing of arriving a couple of weeks after "Hail, Caesar!", the Coen brothers' spoof of old Hollywood mores. George Clooney starred as a pompous stiff of an actor playing a Roman officer who gets swept up in the adoration of the Christ. Then I saw the ads for this movie and thought, "Uh oh..."

At second blush it seems like it has the potential to be an ill-thought attempt to mash up Biblical tales with modern storytelling tropes, with Joseph Fiennes playing a Roman tribune tasked with investigating the disappearance of Jesus' body. It starts off with all the hallmarks of a crime procedural: talking to witnesses, gathering evidence, unexpected twists.

I think I may have even muttered under my breath, "CSI: Judea?"

But after these early hesitations I warmed to the movie. It's well-acted and earnest without becoming cloying. A lot of those Golden Age epics touching on Christian themes could be smarmy as all get out, but director Kevin Reynolds ("Waterworld"), who co-wrote the script with Paul Aiello, keeps things sober and on an even keel.

Fiennes, as ambitious officer Clavius, acts as our clear-eyed observer into the Resurrection mythology. He's skeptical without being an amoral heel who only cares about power -- like Pontius Pilate (Peter Firth), who just wants things tidied up before the Emperor arrives for a visit. He orders Clavius to put an end to the crucifixion and get rid of the bodies.

Except, of course, Jesus' corpse goes missing, and the people start whispering about having risen from the dead. Clavius, along with his impressionable new right-hand man, Lucius (Tom Felton), starts the task of ferreting out the truth. Eventually this forces the rational, pragmatic Roman to start questioning if miracles really are in the offing.

Cliff Curtis plays Jesus (here called Yeshua in Hebrew), whom we first see turned to bloody bits at the end of his ordeal. But this is not "The Passion of the Christ," obsessed with the rending of flesh, but the humanistic tale of what came after. Things build to Clavius being presented with Jesus after the resurrection, alive and smiling, showing his disciples the holes in his hands and side. The Roman decides to follow as they flee to Galilee, his role transformed from conducting interrogations to bearing witness.

The Apostles are depicted as everyday men capable of great faith and doubt, who are ensorcelled by this purported son of the one true God. Stewart Scudamore is a powerful presence as Peter, the oldest and unofficial leader of Jesus' followers. He even gets to show unexpected flashes of humor.

"I haven't every answer," Peter responds to Clavius' many inquiries. "We're astonished, too."

I didn't think I'd like "Risen," but the movie surprised me. It's neither a mushy call to the faithful or a revisionist take laboring to cast doubt on scripture. Rather, it simply depicts how the story of Jesus might have played out in the moment, without that overly dramatic sense of portent that normally invades films about Christianity.

Whether you're a doubter, true believer or indifferent, it's a story of peace and hope worth embracing.