90th Academy Award Predictions October

October 2017, 90th Academy Award Predictions:

 

Best Picture:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Call Me By Your Name
  2. Dunkirk
  3. The Shape of Water
  4. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
  5. The Darkest Hour
  6. Lady Bird
  7. The Florida Project

Possible:

  1. The Post
  2. The Phantom Thread
  3. Get Out

 

Best Director:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Christopher Nolan, Dunkirk
  2. Luca Guadagnino, Call Me By Your Name
  3. Guillermo Del Toro, The Shape of Water
  4. Martin McDonagh, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri

Possible:

  1. Joe Wright, The Darkest Hour
  2. Steven Spielberg, The Post
  3. Greta Gerwig, Lady Bird

 

Best Actor:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Timothee Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name
  2. Gary Oldman, The Darkest Hour
  3. Daniel Day Lewis, Phantom Thread

Possible:

  1. Jake Gyllenhaal, Stronger
  2. Tom Hanks, The Post
  3. Denzel Washington, Roman J. Israel

 

Best Actress:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Sally Hawkins, The Shape Of Water
  2. Frances McDormand, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
  3. Saoirse Ronan, Lady Bird
  4. Margot Robbie, I, Tonya

Possible:

  1. Kate Winslet, Wonder Wheel
  2. Meryl Streep, The Post
  3. Jessica Chastain, Molly’s Game

 

Best Supporting Actor:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project
  2. Armie Hammer, Call Me By Your Name
  3. Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
  4. Michael Stuhlbarg, Call Me By Your Name

Possible:

  1. Ben Mendelsohn, The Darkest Hour
  2. Richard Jenkins, The Shape Of Water

 

Best Supporting Actress:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Alison Janney, I, Tonya
  2. Laurie Metcalf, Lady Bird

Possible:

  1. Melissa Leo, Novitate
  2. Holly Hunter, The Big Sick
  3. Octavia Spencer, The Shape Of Water

 

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Call Me By Your Name

Possible:

  1. Mudbound
  2. The Disaster Artist
  3. Molly’s Game
  4. The Last Flag Flying
  5. The Death Of Stalin

 

Best Original Screenplay:

Leading Contenders:

  1. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
  2. The Shape Of Water
  3. Get Out
  4. Lady Bird

Possible:

  1. The Post
  2. The Big Sick
  3. The Phantom Thread
Advertisement

‘Geostorm’ (2017)

‘Geostorm’ (2017)

In a year of some woefully bad movies such as nuclear bomb bad ‘Mother!’ and the problematic Kingsmen’ sequel, I didn’t think it was possible for an ostensibly campy ‘end-of-the-world’ film to miss the lowest of possible bars of film entertainment, and join their ranks. I admit I am a sucker for big budget spectacle Hollywood disaster movies, I really enjoyed ‘2012’, ‘Independence Day’, ‘Deep Impact’ and ‘The Day, After Tomorrow’. For a film called ‘Geostorm’ to hit its low bar all it needed to do was to a) show us amazing, destruction scene spectacle special effects b) be campy fun that doesn’t take it self too seriously. That’s it. Acting, plot, character development and message all get a free pass, just be awesome and fun. Incredibly ‘Geostorm’ fails on both counts. The destruction scene special effects extravaganza payoff you spend most of the film eagerly waiting for, and what the trailer teased us with, comes in patchy fleeting moments that are not nearly epic enough and not long enough. Some effects are amazing but there are moments of people running that looked like the low resolution of Sim characters running from a ice tsunami. Why a stadium would blow up from a lightning strike also seems bumb and not implausible enough. And even in these crumbs of kick ass destruction ‘vignettes’ the film takes it self too seriously even to be campy. You know it’s bad when a scene where Copacabana beach in Rio is turned into ice isn’t even fun! Just as the Star Wars prequels failed and god awful ‘Independence Day: Resurgence’ failed, because they did not understand what made them attractive in the first place. ‘2012’, in many ways a campy silly movie was both awesome and fun, it understood what this kind of film is about, epic spectacles of destruction. You also know a film is bad when you are being reminded fondly of ‘Armageddon’ while watching the poor man’s version. As the years pass this film will wither into obscurity, the momentary scenes of special effects destruction will be assorted into a YouTube clip of ‘movie destruction scenes’ rated as middling among better movies. 2/10

‘Blade Runner: 2049’ (2017)

Blade Runner 2049:

Ridley Scott’s original ‘Blade Runner’ (1982) is one of my all time favourite films, and ranks alongside ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, ‘Metropolis’ and ‘Children of Men’ as one of the greatest Science Fictions films ever. The original Blade Runner’s genius was threefold: it’s revolutionary dystopian visuals, it’s philosophically complex questioning and it’s world creation/predictions of a future society.

Dennis Villeneueve’s sequel, hot off the success of his 2016 masterful ‘Arrival’, has in terms of aesthetics, cinematography and special effects matched the majesty of the original. ‘Blade Runner: 2049’ is one of the most artistic films, visually of any this decade. The Oscar for best visual effects should be in the bag. However the film doesn’t add much to the original philosophical questions. In terms of the future predictions: climate change and our addiction to the virtual feature beautifully.

It’s worth mentioning that the trap, when reviewing a sequel to a great classic original, is to entirely compare it without considering the film on its own terms. Where the film falls short of being a great film, in my opinion, has little to do with any comparison to the original. It’s weak spots come in it’s self aware solemn attempt to build a space opera franchise with a particular twist in the plot that turns the philosophical premise into a ‘family drama’. This franchise building exercise, that is inevitably going to lead to more Blade Runner films, diminishes the film, particularly towards the end, as you start to realise it is a long set up for future films. What worries me is a potential Matrix-esque mess in which a brilliant philosophical original becomes a launching pad for a ridiculous bloated trilogy.

The other shortcoming is the plot twist itself, which is mildly interesting, as an extension of the original films brilliant philosophical paradox regarding the nature of consciousness and what it means to be human. It is worth noting that the original film is based off the famous science fiction novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ by Philip K Dick which as its title suggests once a ‘being’ has consciousness it takes on ‘personhood’. So yes robots can become human, which is what the film also suggests as one character mimics the ‘robot/replicant creator’s motto: More Human than Human. Thanks to the original this is now a common sci fi plot point. As the hit tv series Westworld recently, in a very Blade Runner esque way, concluded that perhaps AI is the next leap in evolution, focusing on the consciousness of the ‘hosts’ in the themepark. Where I would have been interested to see this philosophical discussion go to is beyond a focus on the consciousness of the AI, to what are the implications for us? How would society cope? What does it mean to confront our own evolutionary end? The humans seem robotic, the robots human. Both films touch on this idea as earth and by extension humanity is slowly abandoned in favour off the ‘grand life off world’. Exploration of a new humanity in the off world colonies is a potentially interesting avenue for future films.

The best scenes in the film articulate ideas of artificial selfhood in sequences about the creation of dreams and in a new take for the film predictions about the our addiction to the digital world. Influences of recent great Sci fi film ‘Her’ (2013) are definitely present in the creation of digital companionship and a love interest for the main ‘Blade Runner’ played tightly by Gosling. The world of this Blade Runner seems bewitched by digital holograms that litter the dystopian city, the most distinctly 2017 aspect of the film, as we are all bewitched by our iPhones and Facebook and Apple are investing billions into virtual reality through at first our phones and then all around us. This is the film’s main prediction for the future, losing our minds to the beauty of the digital at the expense of nature and reality. The other main prediction that wasn’t in the original is the extent to which climate change will dictate our future world. Massive walls protect LA of 2049 from rising sea levels, the opening shot of the film is fields of solar farms abandoned under the thick haze, food has become a staple of synthetic proteins and algae. The original so cleverly predicted our multi-lingual future, our environmental decay, loss of culture and authenticity, advances in technology. The sequel feels sadder, with an unrelentingly somber tone throughout. Whereas the original shocked and horrified us, we now live in a time where this dystopia seems familiar and more and more likely.

Ultimately although the film is less shocking, sadder, a set up for another film, less philosophically interesting than the original it nevertheless is an exceptional sci fi film that needs to be seen on the big screen.

9/10