Tuesday, December 1, 2015
iZombie Review: "Abra Cadaver"
The more personal side of the episode feature each character's relationships, and few of them are going well. Major is struggling with the idea of Liv's personality changes, but is still falling into his old habit of keeping it to himself instead of sharing it with Liv. Maybe one day he'll learn that being honest would help a lot of his problems, but I don't think that is happening any time soon. Ravi very uncharacteristically was a jerk about dumping his girlfriend, and then tried to hit on Peyton who was not reciprocating. It was weird to see Ravi behave this way, but it's no surprise that his feelings for Peyton are much stronger than he has let her know. Peyton meanwhile continued flirting with Blaine, though nothing came of it. I get it, this adds "drama" to the show, but I'm already bored by this story line. The episode also revealed that Clive and Dale are much more than just friendly co-workers. I'll admit, I didn't expect that relationship to happen so quickly. What makes that more complicated is that Liv and Blaine have been spying on Dale, and they were much less subtle than they should have been. Liv has become a decent detective, and Blaine is a excellent criminal, so them being so careless about breaking into Dale's house seems odd. I still believe Clive will find out about Liv's secret very soon.
This week's review is short, and uninspired, but I'm going to blame that on all of the Thanksgiving festivities that were going on.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
iZombie Review: "Max Wager"
Showing that Major wasn't a monster capable of killing innocent people was the only logical way to redeem his character, but the show still got some nice mileage off of the concept of how far Major would go to protect Liv. The best part of this episode, however, was being able to see Major resemble his old self a little more. The scene where Peyton and Ravi find out Liv and Major are back together was hilarious. Major's "suffer bitch" line was easily the funniest moment on television all week. Robert Buckley handles comedy well, and so do the show's writers. It was nice to see that utilized where it hasn't been in so long.
Things did happen outside of Major, though. The case of the week was dud, but the show has long since moved past that being the main focus. It did give Liv a mildly entertaining, if not narratively unnecessary personality to play with this week. Blaine had a very morbid, and sure to be emotionally disturbing in the future, plot line involving his serious daddy issues. Lastly Peyton ran into a threat that is sure to come back around in the future. Overall it was decent episode for most characters, but Major's redemption made this episode a bright spot in a slightly dark season.
Monday, November 9, 2015
iZombie Review: "Love and Basketball"
- It's a little odd that Major goes from avoiding Liv at all costs, to wanting to "do sex" with her so bad that he would risk being turned into a zombie. Then again, Major isn't exactly his most rational self these days.
- The case of the week was a dud, but the personality was another showcase in how great the writers are for this show. Having Liv take on the personality of a motivational speech prone basketball coach was perfectly timed with Major coming to her for help. It was also a lot of fun.
- Clive's relationship (for now just a work relationship, but maybe someday more than that) with Dale has not only given his character some of the more fun moments in the episode, it also gave new life to his very mediocre side story of investigating the Meat Cute massacre.
- Speaking of Clive and Meat Cute, figuring out that Suzuki had part of a brain in his freezer means Clive will probably been in on the zombie secret sooner than later. It's a move I think the writers can handle.
- Ravi is often left out of the more action heavy parts of the show, so it was nice to see him in action during his slightly morbid game of keep away (in this case with a serum that instantly kills zombies) with Blaine.
- Anyone notice that Hearst College reference thrown out there during the episode? Here's hoping it means Veronica Mars and Liv Moore occupy the same fictional universe, cause I want to see those two solve a crime together.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
iZombie Review: "Even Cowgirls Get the Black and Blues"
-This week's case/brain of the week did little for the development of the show, but giving Rose McIver a chance to show off her singing skills and getting to hear all of her odd folksy sayings was a fun enough use of the brain to make up for it.
iZombie Review: "Real Dead Housewife of Seattle"
With the focus of the episode, and even the case of the week, being centered around Max Rager, a lot was revealed about what is still a fairly mysterious enemy to Liv. Not only did the show reveal that Liv's roommate (I had to look up that her name is Gilda because it has been used so little on the show) is Vaughn Du Clark's daughter, but that both of them are still very in the dark about how being a zombie works. With all of their spying and research it was somewhat surprising that neither of them could figure out Liv knew information about the murder victim from eating her brains, but I guess even evil corporations have their limitations.
Major's story in the episode was mostly tied to Max Rager and his blackmail driven quest to kill zombies. It's apparent that Major's story arch this season will just get darker and darker until he has reached his breaking point. His zombie kill in the episode was much more dark and disturbing than the first time, and under the influence of utopium, he slept with Gilda, who put him in this horrible position in the first place. I imagine times will only get rougher for Major in future episodes.
Liv's case was mostly a dud, but the personality she took on brought about some great character development. How better to highlight Liv's isolation than to have her consume the brain of someone whose relationships are all superficial. The brain also allowed Liv to vent some frustrations. Liv has made some bad decision over the course of the show, but the scene where she slapped Major was somewhat cathartic. Not only because somebody needs to smack some sense into him, but because Major has spent the whole season blaming Liv for being something that is completely out of her control.
Peyton's return was a small, but nice, diversion for the episode to take. I expected her return to be dramatic and for her to still push Ravi and Liv away, but the show handled it much better than that. The scene between Peyton and Ravi was a nice reminder of the chemistry between those characters. Peyton being the one person to remember or care about Liv's birthday was the perfect emotional touch that such a dark episode needed. With isolation being such a strong theme on the show for Liv, it was important for her to be reminded that there are people who will never give up on her.
Observations:
-I noted that the first two cases of the season were both murders based on mistaken information. This episode definitely ended that pattern with the murder being carried out by a hired hitman.
-If Peyton works for the D.A. who is essentially working for Blaine, then a Peyton and Blaine encounter seems like a likely occurrence in a future episode.
Monday, October 19, 2015
iZombie Review: "Zombie Bro"
In season one, the personalities that Liv took on altered her relationships with the people she was closest to. Underneath all of the zombie mythology and crime solving, this is a show about how one event changed all of Liv's personal relationships. These brains can be fun, but if they don't affect that one central theme, then they aren't' worth much to the show. The beauty of having Liv stay in character with each new personality is that when her true self breaks through all of that, it has a much greater impact than if the personalities just come and go when they are convenient. Liv's scene in the bathroom with Major was one of the show's most sincere scenes so far. Liv's joke about not shaving off Major's eyebrows was also her way of saying that no personality she takes on could prevent her from being there for him.
While Major's new unwanted quested to hunt Seattle's zombies wasn't featured in this episode, it was always looming in the background. The show has put itself in a try position with this plot line. A wrong step could make Major's motivations seem too flimsy, or could make his actions irredeemable. This episode did a good job of balancing all of those elements. Starting with Major's guilt stricken reaction to his first zombie killing, and ending with his fall into drug addiction highlighted just how much the situation is destroying Major inside. The show also sprinkled in little reminders of why he's so motivated to comply with being blackmailed too. Throwing Liv's phone into the street and the bathroom scene where he tells her that he won't let anything happen to her are good reminders of why a good character is doing such a bad thing. This doesn't necessarily redeem Major, but the constant reminders of his humanity are going to be pivotal in keeping him from being a character beyond saving.
The third story line mostly just involved Blaine doing all of his usual scheming. The episode just showed the beginnings of whatever it is Blaine has planned for the season, so it was by far the least interesting part of the episode.
Potentially insignificant observation: This is the second case in a row where the killer was motivated by false information when they killed the victim. Maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's on purpose. Time will tell, I guess.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
iZombie Review: "Grumpy Old Liv"
The episode also brought about a lot of unlikely pairs working together. Major being blackmailed into working with Max Rager to hunt zombies, is a dark path to have that character go down. I'm all for creating interesting situations on the show, and this is definitely that, but this is a plot twist that could have some very interesting implications for Major's ability to live with himself, or maintain relationships with Liv and Ravi. Major, unlike Liv, seems to be falling back into his old habit of acting first and thinking later. Realistically, his first reaction to being blackmailed should have been to tell Liv and Ravi about the entire situation, especially given the fact that Max Rager will eventually want to kill Liv, but having him keep it a secret creates more narrative drama.
I found the alliance-by-necessity of Liv and Blaine to be the much more interesting plot development in the episode. Blaine's acidic wit and Liv's no-nonsense attitude made for a great juxtaposition and some of the episode's funniest scenes. The Jimmy Stewart impression Blaine did was spot on, and one of the series' funniest moments. Show creator Rob Thomas is at his best when writing witty banter, and when Liv and Blaine share a scene together, the show feel a lot like Veronica Mars at its best.
The weakest part of the episode was the "case of the week." At this point, the only reason the show continues to use this format is so that Liv has context for the new brains she consumes. Giving Liv a new personality each week tends to add a fun element to the show, and it's always fun to see what Rose McIver try out a new personality, but the cases have consistently become the least interesting part of a show that has plenty of strong plot lines in motion. The grumpy old man personality Liv adopted this week was too broad to do the episode any favors. It was one of the least believable personalities so far, and unlike past episodes where the personality drives the direction of the plot, this personality seemed to go away whenever Liv needed to have a serious conversation with another character. I'm still a big fan of the concept, but if the show is going to stick with a case of the week, the accompanying brain needs to be more interesting than this week's brain. Other than that, this episode was a great start to a new season of one of the year's best new shows.
Friday, May 1, 2015
The Road to Ultron: My Thoughts on the Marvel Films Leading Up to Avengers 2
- This is the film that set off the entire MCU, and it's a worthy entry.
- Some people still stand by this one as the best Marvel film, but I like how much things have evolved from this point.
- Having seen what the later Marvel movies are capable of, it's hard for me not to see this one as a little dated. Still an amazing movie, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.
- Origin stories aren't my favorite, just cause I hate wading through all of the exposition. That being said, this film makes the most out of what is actually a pretty minimal plot.
- If there was just a movie where Tony Stark and Pepper Potts spent a day together as civilians, I'd watch it. The interactions between these two never get old.
- Infinity Stone Watch: This film predates Marvel's interest in infinity stones in the MCU, but it does heavily focus on Tony Stark's "arc reactor," which has played a large role in the MCU.
- In my opinion, this is Marvel's weakest film.
- It's a shame that behind the scenes circumstances basically prevented a Hulk series from ever taking off. I think it would have been interesting to see the this character faced with challenges that are worthy of his ability.
- That being said, I'm not sad that Edward Norton was replaced after this film. He's not bad here, but I think things worked out for the best.
- It's also a shame that Liv Tyler's Betty Ross character didn't get a chance to grow in future films. She's such a strong motivation for the Hulk, that her absence from future films seems like the biggest hole in the overall Hulk story.
- This may be the weakest film in the bunch, but if it did nothing more that set up the Hulk as a character in the Avengers films, then it was worth it.
- Infinity Stone Watch: None here. This film is the least vital to the MCU as a whole.
- A lot of people think this is the worst Marvel film. It has its fair share of flaws, but I like parts of it better than the first film.
- This was the first Marvel film to have a truly great fight scene.
- I could do without the Justin Hammer villain, but Ivan Vanko is one of the more impressive villains in the MCU.
- I like Don Cheadle much better as Rhodey than I did Terrence Howard. As an actor he seems to have a charisma that better matches the energy of Robert Downey Jr.
- Based on Black Widow's somewhat unimpressive introduction here, I wouldn't have predicted just how big of a character she would become in the MCU. She does have a particularly badass fight scene, though.
- I'm glad that Marvel took the time in this film to promote Pepper from assistant to CEO. Films like this run the risk of turning the supporting women into nothing more than a love interest, but this franchise wisely does more than that with Pepper.
- This is the closest Marvel comes to an "in between" movie that only sets up other films (could they talk about New Mexico more?), but I still think it is a better stand alone film than it is given credit for being.
- Infinity Stone Watch: Again, none yet, but Tony does invent a new element.
- This series gets the least amount of credit in the MCU, and I've never fully understood why. It's a solid origin story film that proved Marvel could have success outside of the Iron Man franchise.
- Natalie Portman's Jane Foster has been criticized for only being a flat love interest. I disagree. Portman is great in the role, and she brings a necessary element to the film.
- With so much of Thor's world being made up of unexplained "magic," I like how Jane and her team ground part of that in their scientific pursuit. I'm glad that the film doesn't try to explain too much of Thor's world. The mystery heightens the idea that Asgard is beyond human understanding.
- I like that this film brings a sort of "fantasy" element to the MCU.
- Loki is the best villain to date in the MCU. There's no disputing that.
- Darcy is great. More Darcy please. I don't care that she's only here for the jokes. It works. Darcy is probably the most universally loved part of this franchise.
- Infinity Stone Watch: In the post-credits, Nick Fury (the head of S.H.I.E.L.D.) is shown to be in possession of the Tesseract (a glowing blue cube). This is the first sighting of an infinity stone, even though it has yet to be identified as one.
- It was a bold move using an entire movie as an origin story set decades before any of the other MCU films, but it clearly paid off.
- I'm not as big a fan of this one as most people seem to be. It's a great film, but as I mentioned before, I only have so much patience for origin story films.
- I said Loki was a the best MCU villain, but Hydra is right behind him. I say Hydra and not Red Skull, cause clearly Hydra is an idea that exists beyond one single villain.
- Peggy Carter is one of the MCU's greatest heroines. Given her presence in this film, it's no wonder Marvel decided to base a whole show around her. In Phase 1 of the MCU, she's the next best thing to Black Widow.
- Casting Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark was genius. His performance leaves no doubt that the Stark personality is a family trait.
- Infinity Stone Watch: The Tesseract is the central point of this film. It is shown to possess lethal power that humans cannot fully understand. We last see it being retrieved from the bottom of the ocean by Howard Stark.
- I think that this is overall greatest film in the superhero genre. It has flaws like any movie, but it is an amazing accomplishment. I know some Dark Knight fans would fight me on this one, but in my opinion one great villain (and I'll admit, that portrayal of the Joker is more impressive than any MCU villain) does not outmatch a collaboration like this.
- Bringing in Joss Whedon to write and direct was a smart move. He's clearly a fan of the material, and he proved with 2005's Serenity, that he can handle large ensembles without losing the individual characters in the overall collaboration.
- Whedon knows exactly how to insert jokes into a film like this, and it makes this such a fun film to watch. It also gives much more personality to characters like Black Widow, who before had been pretty flat.
- Speaking of Black Widow: she becomes one of the most compelling characters in the MCU here. She steals most scenes that she is in, and the scene where she deceives Loki by playing into his misogynistic tendencies, is brilliant. I think it's no mistake that Whedon portrayed the lone female Avenger as the most clever Avenger.
- I'm glad Whedon cut out a little time for Pepper Potts and Tony Stark to have a little banter before Tony has to suit up for action.
- Mark Ruffalo's performance coupled with Joss Whedon's writing took the Hulk from being my least favorite MCU hero, to being in my top three. The character is used excellently here.
- Loki was a smart choice as a villain. He didn't get to show off much in Thor, so bringing him back to cause even more chaos, was smart.
- I've heard the complaint that Loki's actions make no sense in this film, because his actions essentially unite the Avengers against him. During WWII, Japan and German provoked the USA and the USSR into joining the war against them, which ultimately lost them the war. Hubris causes people to act out of ego instead of reason. Loki's main motivation in this film is his ego driven need to rule over people he thinks are beneath him. I think it makes perfect sense. He thinks by striking first he can stop the Avengers before they start.
- The battle of New York is the single greatest fight scene in any superhero film. Whedon basically just lets the Avengers loose to show off all of their skills. It's fun, but also has serious stakes.
- Infinity Stone Watch: The Tesseract once again is at the center of this film. Loki uses it to open a portal to unleash and alien army on Earth. Loki also has a scepter with a powerful blue stone in it. I don't know if it has ever explicitly been labeled as an infinity stone, but at the least its powers are clearly somehow linked to the Tesseract. At the end of the film Thor takes Loki and the Tesseract back to Asgard for safekeeping. I don't think it is ever clearly explained where Loki's scepter ended up, but Black Widow was the last character seen with it, so it's probably in the hands of S.H.I.E.L.D.
- This film sets off Phase 2 of the MCU, which will conclude with this year's release of Ant-Man.
- This is my favorite Iron Man film, cause it doesn't have to deal with the exposition of the first film, or the clear future Avengers agenda of the second film. I think it stands alone the best of any film in this series.
- It's unfortunate that Tony and Pepper spend most of the film apart, but having Pepper be the character that ultimately saves the day was a nice twist and another spotlight on a consistently strong female character in the MCU.
- Tony's team up with Harley (a boy he befriends after Jarvis accidentally sends Tony to Tennessee) makes up for his lack of screen time with Pepper. The relationship between the two is fun, but also makes Tony face some hard realities.
- Speaking of hard realities, I'm glad that the film chose to show that Tony had emotional trauma after the events of The Avengers. An attack from an alien army and a near death experience would do that to anyone; even Tony Stark.
- Aldrich Killian is a passable villain. He's not the most impressive, but he's definitely not the least impressive. His powers prove to be a good match for Iron Man, to the point where a similarly powered Pepper has to defeat him in the end.
- I've read complaints about Tony spending so much time out of the suit in this film, but I think it just reinforces the idea that it is Tony, and not his suit, that is the real Iron Man.
- Tony's army of Iron Man suits is an interesting idea that pays off in one of the MCU's better fight scenes, at the end of the film.
- Infinity Stone Watch: None here, which is probably smart given the heavy reliance on the Tesseract in the previous two films.
- Most of the criticisms people had of the first film in this series are the same criticisms they had of this film.
- While Thor is arguably the least complex Avenger, I think this film works on digging a little deeper into his character here, and even gives him a darker edge at times. I like that Thor is less naive to Loki's tricks in this film.
- The Dark Elves are arguably the least compelling villains in any of the MCU films. It's not that they aren't powerful (they clearly possess the power to wipe out Asgard if they wanted to), they just don't have much personality or motivation.
- That being said, Loki makes a nice anti-hero/villain, and gives the film a few nice twists. His impersonation of Captain America is pretty clever too.
- The scope of the first film felt pretty limited. This film does an excellent job of expanding Thor's universe beyond just Asgard and Earth. It was an important idea to establish not just for this film, but for future films such as Guardians of the Galaxy.
- I think this film makes better use of Jane than the first one did, but I still would like the series to find a more natural way to bring her into the action of the story.
- Darcy is back! Her role is once again limited, but it seems like this film gives here even more room to crack wise, and such. I love that she has her own intern to boss around in this film. Besides a small plot line where she saves Erik Selvig from a mental institution, there isn't any real reason for her to be here. I'm glad they brought her back anyway. She's a scene stealer.
- It's too bad that Rene Russo's Frigga was killed off so early. She grounded the film, even if she had very limited screen time.
- I'm also a fan of Idris Elba's Heimdall portrayal in this series. He doesn't have a very large role, but he plays the part well.
- Infinity Stone Watch: At the beginning of the film, Oden explains what the infinity stones are, and that there are six of them. This is the first detailed explanation of the infinity stones in any MCU film. After the events of The Avengers, Asgard is in possession of the Tesseract (and since Loki is impersonating Oden at the end of the film, that essentially means he once again has control of it). Jane is possessed with the Aether, a second infinity stone, which Oden explains is the only infinity stone to take a liquid form. The Dark Elves eventually take control of the Aether, but when they are defeated, Asgard gains possession of it. In a mid-credits scene, Lady Sif is shown giving it to The Collector, since the Asgardians believe it is unsafe to keep both it and the Tesseract in Asgard.
- This film had a lot riding on it, being the first solo film in the series set in the present day. It surpassed any expectations I had.
- With this film, I believe the Russo Brothers have established themselves as the best directors in the MCU. I love what Whedon did with The Avengers, but this is clearly the superior film when it comes to direction. It's no wonder Marvel has asked them to direct the third Captain America and the final two part Avengers film.
- The action scenes in this film are amazingly well shot, and have an acrobatic nature to them. I've read many comments about how impressive Black Widow's fighting style is in this film, because you can see how she realistically uses momentum to overcome her size while fighting larger enemies. Everyone gets a chance to shine here, as well. We finally get to see Nick Fury in action, during a very fun and unique car chase scene.
- The writing is smart here too. Characters are given snappy dialogue that rivals Joss Whedon in wit. It says a lot that so many previously established characters are explored much deeper than they have ever been before.
- Emily VanCamp's Agent 13 is an unnecessary character here, but at least she works as a representation of the agents who remain loyal to S.H.I.E.L.D. when Hydra is exposed.
- I love the pairing of Black Widow and Captain America. They represent opposite sides of the hero spectrum in almost every way, and yet their chemistry on screen together is perfect (and I chemistry in a very platonic way.)
- The Winter Soldier title is a bit of a misdirect. He's a very dangerous tool being used by the true villain, Hydra (which has managed to survive hidden inside S.H.I.E.L.D.).
- The Hydra twist is bold. Marvel unraveled a lot of previously established ideas in the MCU with the dissolution of S.H.I.E.L.D. It pays off tremendously here (and also gave a jump start to the show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.).
- I love the inclusion of Falcon as a character here. Not only does he provide the film with a character that is completely removed from S.H.I.E.L.D/Hydra, he also gives the MCU a much needed African American hero. Yes there are Rhodey (a.k.a. War Machine/Iron Patriot) and Nick Fury, but Falcon sees more action in this one movie than they have seen in the entire MCU. Anthony Mackie is perfect for the role, and I hope Marvel continues to take advantage of the asset they have in him.
- This is the most culturally relevant Marvel film to date. The film asks a lot of questions about the nature of privacy in a world where governments want to take more and more control in the face of unknown threats. It's significant that a character as morally upstanding as Captain America takes a stand against the actions that both S.H.I.E.L.D. and Hydra are trying to take to control the world.
- Infinity Stone Watch: In a mid-credits scene, we see that Hydra's Baron von Strucker is in possession of what appears to be Loki's scepter. If S.H.I.E.L.D. indeed maintained possession of it after The Avengers, this could explain how Hydra obtained it. It appears Strucker has been using the scepter to do tests on people, the result being the creation of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, whom we briefly meet during this scene. Both are characters in the upcoming Avengers sequel. Again, I don't know of any official confirmation that the scepter itself is an infinity stone.
- By the tenth film, Marvel has perfected the origin story film. This is hands down the best origin story in the MCU (no, I did not stutter, die hard Iron Man fans).
- A lot of people said casting Chris Pratt was a risk. By Hollywood's standards, I guess it was. Personally, I always saw it as the most spot on casting choice Marvel had made since Robert Downey Jr. was cast as Tony Stark (and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of Marvel's casting choices).
- Pratt is the heart and soul of the film, but there's no doubt that this film is an ensemble piece. If one of the main five actors hadn't sold their part, the film would have fallen flat. It's great work by a diverse cast of actors.
- I love how this film is set in space, yet there's nary a reference to Thor or Asgard. This film definitely has a retro sci-fi atmosphere, compared to Thor's more fantasy infused setting. It also creates a more expansive universe in one film, than the Thor franchise did in two films.
- For a film with four villains, none of them are all that impressive. I'll cut Thanos a little slack here, though, since he clearly isn't meant to be much more than a cameo here.
- This is a film that shouldn't work, but it does because from the very start they committed to the idea of being surreal and silly in their approach to the material. Consistency goes a long way in a movie like this.
- I always think it is interesting when a film's tone is driven by its soundtrack. That's definitely the case here, and it helps set this film apart from the rest of the MCU.
- Of all of the films in the MCU, I think this one feels the least like a "Marvel" film, which is a refreshing change of pace.
- Infinity Stone Watch: Like much of phase two, this one is centered around an infinity stone. In this case it's a small purple looking jewel that isn't really called much else except "the orb," which is actually more a description of the container for the stone, than the stone itself. The Guardians take it to The Collector (whom if you'll recall, Asgard entrusted with the Dark Aether because they didn't want two stones in one place) to sell him the orb. Once they learn how powerful it is, they decide to take it to Xandar where it will be safer. Of course it's not that easy, but eventually it gets to Xandar. So the orb is in Xandar, The Collector presumably still has the Dark Aether (and since he was looking to collect more stones, he is probably a future Marvel villain), and the Tesseract is in Asgard (where Loki seems to have access to it).
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Parks and Recreation: Saying Farewell to One of Television's Finest
Sunday, February 22, 2015
2015 Academy Award Overview: Best Picture
Each Academy member gets a ballot. On that ballot members rank the eight nominated films in order of best to worst. After the ballots have been submitted, all of the first place votes are added up and allotted to their designated films. If at the end of this process, one nominee has over 50% of the first place votes, then you have your winner. If not, however, the nominee with the fewest first place votes is taken out of consideration. So let's say that hypothetically Whiplash gets the fewest number of votes. It would then no longer be eligible to win best picture, and every ballot that had Whiplash in the number one spot would then move on to the film that is listed as second best on the ballot, and those votes are added to the totals for their designated films. This process continues on until one film has more than 50% of the votes for best picture. So hypothetically, Birdman could get 40% of the first place votes, but a film like Boyhood could eventually surpass it in the voting as more films are eliminated from contention.
Another factor to consider is who votes. The Academy is made up of industry members who have been invited to join. The nominations are determined by each separate voting body within the Academy. So actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, animators nominate animated films, and so on. When it comes to voting for a winner after nominations have been set, the entire Academy votes on every category. The biggest voting block in the Academy is the actors branch. So, when looking at a Best Picture nominees chances, you often have to consider what kind of movie it is. Actors love actor driven movies. Gravity won just about every technical award it could last year, but when it came down to Best Picture, Gravity is a movie with one main actor, and 12 Years A Slave is a movie with a large ensemble. The same thing happened to Avatar when it lost to The Hurt Locker in 2010. If your film can't gain the support of the actors branch of the Academy, then you can probably forget winning Best Picture.
Best Picture:
American Sniper
Birdman
Whiplash
The Imitation Game
Boyhood
Selma
The Theory of Everything
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Who will win?
This is a close race this year between Birdman and Boyhood. Leading up to the Oscars, Birdman has won the Best Ensemble SAG award (which is basically that guild's equivalent of Best Picture), as well as the top prizes from the Directors' Guild and the Producers' Guild. In most cases this would make Birdman a sure bet to win this year. The last time a film won all three of those awards and didn't win the Oscar was Apollo 13 back in 1996. This is also an actor driven movie, so it probably will not be hard for it to gains support among the acting branch members. Boyhood has racked up its fair share of praise too. It won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama, the Critics Choice award for Best Picture, and the BAFTA for Best Picture. What makes the BAFTA win significant here, is that they use a preferential ballot system like the Academy. So Boyhood might benefit from this voting system more than Birdman. If I had to guess, I'm going to say that the Academy will end up giving this to Boyhood. The story behind how Boyhood was made, makes it an easy film to vote for, and I think the preferential ballot system will have it close to the top of most of this year's ballots.
Who should win?
1.) Selma
Selma tells the story of how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. organized the March from Selma, Alabama to the state's capitol in an effort to bring an end to laws that were keeping minorities from being able to register to vote. This is an incredibly well crafted film. The cinematography is stunning, the direction by Ava DuVernay is best work any director did this year, and David Oyelowo gave the best performance by an actor in any film. The fact that all of those elements were neglected by the Academy shows that there are flaws in the nomination system. Not only is this the most well crafted film in the category, it's also the most culturally relevant. Some people have said Selma should be happy to be recognized here, but the best film of 2014 deserved more recognition.
2.) Birdman
Birdman tells the story of an actor who is making his Broadway debut in an attempt to regain his artistic relevance, but who is slowly losing his mind to his growing need for fame. There are a lot of moving parts to a film like Birdman, that make it a marvel to watch. The cinematography is excellent (and will probably win an Oscar), the film has a kinetic energy, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's direction of all of these moving parts is impressive. Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, and Naomi Watts all give Oscar worthy performances. This film asks complex and interesting questions about the nature of art, and the people who are creating it.
3.) Boyhood
Boyhood tells the story of a young boy and his family over twelve years of their lives. The director and cast dedicated 12 years of their lives to making this film, which would be impressive enough, even if the film hadn't turned out to be very good. It turned out to be an amazing film that features a sense of realism unlike any other film I have ever seen. The story has universal qualities any viewer can relate to, and excellent work from a cast that makes each character feel believable and real. Richard Linklater deserves a lot of credit for having the vision to make this film work.
4.) Whiplash
Whiplash tells the story of a young drummer who wants to be the best, and his legendary teacher who uses questionable methods to drive his students. This film is a masterful work of contained chaos. Actors J.K. Simmons and Miles Teller are forces of nature here, and it is amazing to watch them play off of each other here. The film asks a lot of questions about the teacher/student relationship and how far is too far in the pursuit of success. Simmons' character uses unethical methods to bring the best out of his students, but he is also arguably the only person who can bring the best out of these students. There are no simple answers here, just thought provoking questions.
5.) The Imitation Game
The Imitation Game tells the story of Alan Turing and a team of code breakers who worked to break the Nazi Enigma code during World War II, so that the allies could win the war. Early on this was considered a strong contender to win this award because its a crowd-pleaser that focuses on a true historical story. It does fit that criteria, but beyond some fine acting by Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley, this film doesn't quite live up to past historical films (such as The King's Speech or Argo) that have won Best Picture. It's a worthy nomination, but this film shouldn't be winning this award.
6.) The Theory of Everything
The Theory of Everything tells the story of Stephen Hawking the progression of his career and relationship with wife Jane Hawking, while suffering from ALS (also commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is a case of a somewhat mediocre film being elevated by the performances of its actors. There are some impressive details to the film-making such as the cinematography and the score, but what's lacking here is the screenplay, which really drags at some points. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones give two of the best performances of any actors this year, but it's not enough to make this an actual contender for this award.
7.) The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Grand Budapest Hotel tells the story of a hotel concierge and his faithful lobby boy who try to clear the concierge's name after he is falsely accused of killing one of the hotel's patrons. I've never been a fan of Wes Anderson's directing style, but I have to admit this film has some impressive qualities. The actors work perfectly in time with Anderson's pacing as a director, the cinematography looks impressive, and the screenplay is the best of any Wes Anderson film I have ever watched (which admittedly isn't many). I don't think this should be nominated for Best Picture, but the film isn't without its virtues.
8.) American Sniper
American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle who has the most verified kills of any American sniper, and how being a soldier affects his personal life. Bradley Cooper gives a great performance here, that in all honesty is much better than anything else the film attempts to do. This is a pretty limited film that lacks the complexity that is demanded by handling the subject of war, on film. It never goes quite as deep as it should into how war affects the soldiers who fought it, once they return home. I also think that it comes across as a very narrow minded approach to the subject matter. An amazing article about that can be read here. There are more deserving films of a nomination this year, but like The Grand Budapest Hotel, this film isn't without its strong points. It will likely at least come away from the Oscars with a sound award (a common win for war films).
Snubs:
Gone Girl
Nightcrawler
Wild
Foxcatcher
How To Train Your Dragon 2
For my analysis of Best Actor/Actress awards, click here.
For my analysis of Best Supporting Actor/Actress awards, click here.
Friday, February 20, 2015
2015 Academy Award Overview: Best Actress/Actor in a Leading Role
3.) Rosamund Pike
It was hard to decide between Rosamund Pike and Felicity Jones for this spot, because both performances are great, but completely different. In Gone Girl, Pike plays a woman who goes to extremes to get out of a marriage she no longer wants to be in. It's hard to pull off this kind of character, without making her into a caricature. Pike's performance is truly horrifying, and I mean that in the best way. This character is a sociopath, and it takes a very talented actress to pull off a performance like this. I don't think this character works in the hands of any other actress, and this film definitely hinges on this performance.
4.) Felicity Jones
A lot has been made of Eddie Redmayne's performance in The Theory of Everything, but for me, it's Felicity Jones' portrayal of Stephen Hawking's wife Jane, that carried the movie. Jones' performance is a subtle one, which is exactly what is needed in this situation. Jane and Stephen are very different people, and yet Jane has made a commitment to stand by Stephen through all of his medical issues and his professional successes. In Jane, Jones has in interesting balancing act to pull off. She has to convey that Jane was a loving wife, while also conveying how her longing to maintain her own identity under the pressure of being her husband's caretaker, changes her over time. I don't think there's any one "Oscar moment" for Jones here; just a strong performance that Jones sustains throughout the entire film.
5.) Marion Cotillard
In Two Days, One Night, Marion Cotillard plays a woman suffering from depression, who learns that she has one weekend to persuade her co-workers to forgo their bonuses, so that she may keep her job. While I certainly see some of the virtues of Cotillard's performance, this nomination is a big stretch for the Academy. There are points in the film where Cotillard is very strong, but what holds the performance back is the way that Cotillard tries to oversell her character's emotional state. There's nothing subtle about it, and I think it's the wrong approach to this role. What makes emotive performances such as Witherspoon's and Moore's work is that they show great restraint in how they portray the highly emotional situations their characters are dealing with. When they break down, it seems believable, because they have been more realistic and subtle leading up to that point. I don't see that here with Cotillard. It's a shame, because I've really enjoyed a lot of Cotillard's work, and think she's a better actress than this role allows her to be.
Snubs:
The fifth nomination in this category should have gone to Jennifer Aniston for her performance in Cake. Aniston's character is very similar to Cotillard's in a lot of ways. They have both suffered hardships, dealt with serious medical issues, and have mostly given up on believing that human beings can be good, compassionate, people. The difference in the performances is that Aniston performs with a subtlety that Cotillard does not. It makes Aniston's portrayal come across as more realistic and human. Proof that Aniston should have earned a nomination here? She was nominated for every other major award this year (except the BAFTA, for which she was not eligible). It appears that the Academy took the "safe" route (and not just in this category) by nominating Cotillard, who has won before in this category.
Best Actor in a Leading Role:
Steve Carell in Foxcatcher
Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game
Bradley Cooper in American Sniper
Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything
Michael Keaton in Birdman
Who will win?
This is probably the most competitive race outside of Best Picture, this year. Michael Keaton started out with a lot of praise and momentum for his work in Birdman. Keanton has racked up some wins to support his status as a contender, too. While he has been nominated in this category for every major award, so far he has won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical, the Critics Choice award for Best Actor, and has been recognized for Birdman's Best Ensemble wins at both the Critics Choice and SAG awards. The recent momentum, however has belonged to Eddie Redmayne. Redmayne's performance in The Theory of Everything has earned him the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama, and the BAFTA and SAG awards for Best Actor in a Leading Role. The late shift in momentum plays to Redmayne's favor, and odds are he'll win the Oscar. I wouldn't count Keaton out, though. Cooper is a wild card here, because he hasn't been nominated for any other awards, but the box office numbers for American Sniper have been huge. I'll be surprised if he wins here, but he very well could siphon off votes from one of the two front-runners and affect which of them wins.
Who should win?
1.) Michael Keaton
In Birdman, Michael Keaton portrays a once famous actor who is slowly descending into madness because of his desperation to be a relevant actor. What is impressive about Keaton's performance is that much like Juilanne Moore in Still Alice, he finds a way to portray a character in decline that still feels more like a real person than a big screen exaggeration. There are some ridiculous elements to the portrayal, but Keaton performs them in such a darkly comic way that they never detract from the character. That's what impresses me the most about Keaton's performance. It's just as hard to pull of well timed comedy as it is too pull off an emotionally affecting dramatic performance. Jennifer Lawrence did it with her Oscar winning portrayal in Silver Linings Playbook, and while Keaton's performance is drastically different, he pulls it off here as well.
2.) Eddie Redmayne
This year's performance by Eddie Redmayne is probably one of the most physical performances I have seen by an actor in a long time. In The Theory of Everything, Redmayne portrays renowned mathematician Stephen Hawking and his relationship with his wife Jane, as he struggles with ALS. It's a very demanding performance, and Redmayne does an amazing job not only of showing how ALS physically affected Hawking, but of how Hawking's identity showed beyond his illness. This performance is at times heartbreaking, clever, and inspiring. My only complaint is that while Redmayne gives an amazing physical performance, I don't think that he shows quite as much emotional complexity as other actors this year. That being said, if Redmayne wins, it won't be undeserved.
3.) Bradley Cooper
I have a little bit of a hard time with these last three nominees, becuase while all three did great work, I personally wouldn't have picked them to be the nominees in this category. In American Sniper, Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, a sniper during the Iraq war with more confirmed kills than any other American. This is a case of a great actor working within a limiting role. War is arguably one of the most complex subjects a film can take on, so the portrayal of someone who is in combat should be complex. I think that Cooper's performance adds more complexity to the character than was actually written for him. There is a sense that Cooper respects the complexity of what this character should be, and I respect that he is able to bring so much out of a role that is written in such a one dimensional way.
4.) Benedict Cumberbatch
In The Imitation Game, Benedict Cumberbatch portrays Alan Turing, the man whose work was fundamental in breaking Nazi codes during World War II and in laying the groundwork for the computer. Cumberbatch's work here is a little hit and miss. There are times when his work here is on par with Keaton and Redmayne. The final scene of the film is a very emotional one that Cumberbatch pulls off flawlessly. The part of the performance that doesn't work for me is how the character is put in the "mildly autistic genius" box. That isn't Cumberbatch's fault, but in the scenes where his character is written this way, his performance does nothing to take the character beyond the stereotypes of that worn out trope. Cumberbatch is successful in making this character very clever, and that gives the performance some life beyond the limitations the film puts on it. Cumberbatch does some great work here, but it's too uneven for a win.
5.) Steve Carell
I always think it's great to see traditionally comedic actors gain recognition for dramatic roles like this. I just don't think that Carell's performance is one of the five strongest of the year. In Foxcatcher, Carell plays a wealthy man who wants to become famous by creating the best wrestling program in the world. There are some great qualities to this performance. All signs of Steve Carell the comedian are gone here. Carell nails the habits and mannerisms of this character who is descending into an unhealthy mental state. It's a very transformative performance. Carell looks, sounds and acts very different here than anything else he has been in. That being said, overall the performance feels much less grounded and human than the other nominees this year. There isn't much subtlety here, and that causes this portrayal of a real person to come across as a little cartoonish at times.
Snubs:
There are some big ones this year. David Oyelowo's performance as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, should have won this award this year. Oyelowo isn't just acting here, he totally inhabits Dr. King, the same way Daniel Day-Lewis inhabited Abraham Lincoln with his Oscar-winning performance in Lincoln. Another standout was Jake Gyllenhaal in the film Nightcrawler. If you take the best elements of Rosamund Pike and Michael Keaton's performances this year, you get Gyllenhaal's haunting performance as a man whose ambition turns him into a monster. While Steve Carell got most of the praise for Foxcatcher this year, I was actually much more impressed with Channing Tatum's performance. Tatum is at a point in his career where you can tell he is seeking serious roles, and when he is given one here, he gives it his all. He's the much more subtle and affecting counterpart to Carell's often over the top monster. Miles Teller is also great in Whiplash. J.K. Simmons' performance dominates the film, but Teller has rightfully gotten critical praise for his work here too.
If you missed my analysis of the supporting actor/actress categories, check it out here.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
2015 Academy Award Overview: Best Supporting Actor/Actress
Two of the most clear-cut categories for the Academy Awards this year are the Actor in a Supporting Role and Actress in a Supporting Role categories. There's no question who will win here, but we'll get to that in a little bit. What I like about this year's supporting categories is that they are full of fairly meaty performances. There have been years when it seemed like most or all of the nominees in these categories had small roles in their given films. That's not the case this year. Each of these actors and actresses has a very meaningful presence in the film for which they are nominated. I would be happy seeing any of these performances earn an award.
This year in my "Who Should Win" section, I'd like to try ranking the nominees rather than just giving one answer to that question. In most of the categories I feel like all of the nominees have some argument for winning, so I want to be able to break it down individually. A little bit of disclosure: the one performance I have not seen out of this group is Robert Duvall in The Judge. It became obvious after the first reviews of The Judge started coming out that the film would not be the Oscar player that some thought it might be, so for that reason I never made it a priority when trying to watch the nominated films and performances this year. For this reason, I obviously cannot accurately discuss this performance, but that shouldn't affect my overall analysis of the supporting actor category.
Best Actor in a Supporting Role:
Robert Duvall in The Judge
Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher
Ethan Hawke in Boyhood
Edward Norton in Birdman
J.K. Simmons in Whiplash
Who will win?
Like I said, this one is clear-cut. J.K. Simmons will join the list of actors who have won Oscars, this year. If you have any doubts, Simmons has won the SAG Award, Golden Globe, Critics Choice Award, and the BAFTA for this performance. It also doesn't hurt that he's a well known and beloved actor in the industry who rarely gets such recognition.
Who should win?
1.) J.K. Simmons:
Whiplash doesn't work as a film if Simmons doesn't give a perfect performance here, and he does. Simmons plays a teacher at a prestigious music school, who produces some of the best musicians. His method of motivation, however, is using various forms of mental and physical abuse to make his students fall in line with what he wants. It's a brutal performance, but Simmons sells it the whole time. It's also a very layered performance. Simmons isn't only excellent at playing the tyrannical side of this character, he also sells the softer side. There are moments in the film where this character flips the switch and presents himself as a charming and approachable person. The fact that Simmons can sell this as well as he sells the monster under the surface is proof of how excellent he is here.
2.) Edward Norton:
What impressed me most about Norton's performance here is how it truly epitomizes the "supporting" aspect of the role. In Birdman, Norton plays a narcissistic method actor whose presence rattles all of the other actors involved in the production he is performing in. Many of the other actors in the film have their best scenes in he film with Norton, or as a result of a scene they have just performed in with Norton. He brings out the best in every other actor in the film.
3.) Ethan Hawke:
In Boyhood, Ethan Hawke plays the main character's father, who isn't always around, but is never completely absent either. Every character in Boyhood goes through a personal evolution over the course of the film, but Ethan Hawke does one of the best jobs of selling that evolution. What I like about Hawke's performance is how he makes the character feel real. This man isn't the primary caregiver to his children, but he still shows strong paternal instincts, in the film. At various points during the film he operates in a range between "deadbeat Dad" and "father of the year" without ever getting stuck in either of those extremes. It's a strong, but understated performance.
4.) Mark Ruffalo:
I could probably argue that Ruffalo's performance in Foxcatcher is just as powerful as Norton or Hawke's performances in their given films. There's a thin margin separating all of these performances, in my opinion. Ruffalo seems to have a little less to do in this film than the other two actors do in their films, but he makes the most of his time on screen. In the film he plays the older brother and wrestling coach to the main character. I think Ruffalo really sells the brotherly, and at times almost fatherly, bond between these characters. That believability is key to making the film work as a whole, and also makes audiences feel the impact of the film's conclusion more deeply.
5.) Robert Duvall:
Again, I can't comment on what I haven't seen.
Snubs:
There were no glaring omissions in this category this year. The actors nominated are all deserving.
Best Actress in a Supporting Role:
Meryl Streep in Into The Woods
Emma Stone in Birdman
Keira Knightley in The Imitation Game
Patricia Arquette in Boyhood
Laura Dern in Wild
Who will win?
This one will be going to Patricia Arquette. Like Simmons, Arquette has won every major award for her performance in this film.
Who should win?
1.) Emma Stone:
I completely understand the praise that Arquette has gotten this year, but overall I think Emma Stone gave the best performance by a supporting actress this year. In Birdman, Stone plays a recovering addict who works as the assistant to a washed up actor, who also happens to be her neglectful father. Stone has many great scenes with Edward Norton in the film, and when the film puts the spotlight on her character, Stone gives the character a beautiful complexity. The moment in the film that should earn her an Oscar is a monologue in which she eviscerates her father and the delusional world he is trying to build up around himself. The way that Stone balances both the contempt and understanding that her character has for her father is impressive, and showcases some of her best work as an actress.
2.) Patricia Arquette:
While I believe Emma Stone should be winning this award, I'm not upset in the least that Arquette will be winning it. Her performance as the main character's mother in Boyhood, is one of the strongest performance of the year. Some performances thrive on big moments, and others thrive on sustaining a character's growth throughout a film. This performance is one of the best examples I have ever seen of the latter kind of performance. Arquette fosters a growth in her character that is more than just the product of a good script or good direction. There's a very personal nature to how Arquette portrays this character, and it makes her feel very real. That's not to say that she doesn't also have some killer scenes in the film, because she does. If Stone can't win, I'm happy it's Arquette going home with the prize.
3.) Laura Dern:
Dern's nomination here came as a little bit of a surprise to many, because she had been neglected by most major awards up to this point. I think it's a very deserving nomination for a performance that hasn't gotten enough credit. In Wild, Dern plays the main character's mother whose death sparks a downward spiral in her daughter's life. What's tricky about this performance for Dern is managing to make this character into that catalyst, while also making her feel like a whole character on her own. Dern pulls this off excellently. What I like the most about this performance is how Dern manages to make this character exude joy for life while also being very vulnerable and aware of the many pains she has suffered in life. I'm glad Dern got some recognition for the role.
4.) Keira Knightley:
In The Imitation Game, Keira Knightley plays one of the people selected to help break the Enigma machine being used by the Germans in World War II. While I think the performances listed above are distinctly stronger, this performance is definitely worthy of a nomination here. Knightley is playing a woman in a man's world here, and she does so very effectively. She brings a wit to the character that reminds audiences that she is one of the smartest people in any room she walks into. With a character like this, there's a fine line between the character coming across as an embodiment of a social statement, and the character coming off a real person. Knightley keeps the character human by showing a lot of vulnerability in her performance.
5.) Meryl Streep:
There are times when I think that Streep is nominated for awards more on reputation than on the merit of her performance. This isn't one of those times. Into The Woods is a movie with a lot of flaws, but Streep's performance is one of the elements that holds the film together. Streep turns the witch into a character that is very menacing, but at the same time displays very real vulnerabilities and desires. Should Streep win for this performance? No, but it's definitely worthy of the recognition it is getting by being nominated here.
Snubs:
Carmen Ejogo gave one of the year's best performances as Coretta Scott King in the highly under-appreciated film Selma. Rene Russo also gave a powerful performance as a desperate news producer, in Nightcrawler, that was worthy of recognition.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Review: Black or White
The true problem of the film is that it never knows what kind of film it wants to be. There are lots of references to race being a major issue in the story, but the reality is that outside of some very awkwardly placed lines in the script, this film offers no true commentary on racial identity. At times the film seems like it wants to tackle the issue of addiction, but really this just becomes a dramatic plot tool that the characters can use against each other in court. While the film thinks it is tackling these very serious issues, it also has the misguided notion that it can pull of being funny at the same time. Many of the jokes are pointed at Jacobs' character, and given the context of them, it comes across as more mean spirited than anything. Maybe if the jokes were actually funny, and if this film had fully committed to being a family comedy, then there might have been hope for the film as a whole. Instead it feels a lot like watching somebody try to do a stand-up routine at a funeral. By not committing to any one format, Black or White becomes a film that never has any sense of identity.
Rating: C-
Friday, January 9, 2015
A Thought on the Selma "Controversy"
Is that really the point though? Let's take a step back from the arguments over the accuracy of the film. This is a movie. It's a work of art. Plot points were concieved and artistic choices were made. DuVernay put herself into whatever is presented on the screen. This isn't a documentary. PBS or the History Channel didn't produce this. The point being, nobody at any point has made the claim that this is in any way an exact retelling of the events surrounding Selma. By focusing the conversation on the perceived historical inaccuracies of the movie, and not any of the many other artistic choices made in creating the film, journalists (and I don't mean film critics) have deprived audiences of some very meaningful conversations. (A very worthwhile article on the subject of criticizing the accuracy of movies over the artistry of movies can be found here.)
I'm not saying that films are above being criticized for accuracy. If inaccuracies make the plot or themes of a film confusing or muddled, then criticizing that, is indeed a part of criticizing the artistic process. As the article referenced above points out, there is a fine line between being an expert on the subject matter dealt with in a film and being an expert of films that are dealing with that subject matter. In 2013, astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson publicly criticized the film Gravity because of scientific inaccuracies. There's a video on YouTube that is over nine minutes long of him pointing out the flaws in the movie. Not 20 seconds into the video a caption pops up that says, "Mysteries of #Gravity: Why anyone is impressed with a zero-G film 45 years after being impressed with '2001: A Space Odyssey'." With that remark Tyson goes from knowledgeable scientist to unqualified film critic. It's the same thing that has happened with Selma. Historians, and journalists with no knowledge of film-making have grabbed hold of the discussion about Selma, the film, and made it about LBJ, the person.
So the big question is: Why does any of this matter? Who care's if the discussion has been about historical accuracy? It's a biographical film, so what else should people be talking about? For starters, how about the fact that Ava DuVernay has a very strong chance of being the first female African-American director to be nominated an Oscar. If she won, DuVernay would be the first black director of either gender to win. How about the fact that this film employed a large number of black actors without having "Tyler Perry Presents" in the title? Then there are the many artistic elements (acting, cinematography, writing, editing, costume design, set design, soundtrack, score, etc.) that are being overshadowed by the current course of the discussion. The real tragedy is if the legacy of this film is always plagued by people not being able to see it for what it is: a movie.